list_locks

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it describes the underlying joins, default exclusion of database-scoped locks, parameter effects (like blocked_only showing victims with blocking_session_id), and default limit. This is comprehensive for a diagnostic tool.

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 description is concise and well-structured, with a one-sentence intro followed by a bullet-like list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to parse.

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?

While the output schema exists (not shown), the description explains the source of the data and parameter effects. It could mention potential performance impact or the need for appropriate permissions, but given the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for an informational tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: explaining workspace and item as identifiers, limit with range, waiting_only and blocked_only as filters, and include_database to add database-scoped locks. Each parameter's meaning and default are clear.

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?

The description clearly states 'Return active lock rows from sys.dm_tran_locks joined with sys.dm_exec_requests', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on locks rather than queries, connections, or other database objects.

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?

The description provides clear context about the tool's purpose (diagnosing locks) and the parameters (waiting_only, blocked_only) guide usage scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_running_queries or list_connections, though the lock-specific context makes the usage clear.

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