get_lock_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: locks are per-path and span multiple client sessions, which explains why the tool exists. It does not discuss lock staleness or scope limits, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose statement and the debugging rationale are front-loaded and earn their place. The '## Return Format' block duplicates the existing output schema, and the '## Examples' section contains only a bare no-argument call, which is filler for a zero-parameter tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still names the key fields. For a zero-argument diagnostic read, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly; only edge-case behavior (stale locks, empty results) is unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the example call 'get_lock_status()' confirms no arguments are needed. Baseline for a parameterless schema applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get current per-path file lock status', with the parenthetical '(diagnostic tool)' clarifying its intent. It is clearly distinguishable from the file/dir/host operation siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with the nearest sibling, test_concurrency_safety.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete usage context: 'useful for debugging concurrent write contention between Claude Desktop, Cursor, and Windsurf sessions.' However, it offers no when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions test_concurrency_safety, which appears to be the adjacent diagnostic sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.