get_locked_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly states the read-only nature ('Check') and provides the project resolution priority order (project_id > workspace_path > project_name). It does not describe output format in detail, but the returned information ('which files...and by whom') is adequately conveyed.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, a concise priority note, and a bulleted 'WHEN TO USE' section. It is slightly longer than necessary, but each section adds value and the text is not wasteful.

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?

For a read-only lookup tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the core function, usage scenarios, and identifier resolution. It could be improved by explicitly noting that the tool does not modify locks or require authentication, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds valuable parameter semantics by explaining that any combination of identifiers can be used and by specifying the resolution priority. This goes beyond the individual field descriptions and helps the agent understand how to flexibly construct queries.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Check which files are currently locked and by whom.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lock_files and unlock_files, which perform different actions on file locks.

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?

A dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' section lists multiple concrete scenarios, such as before planning work or when encountering conflicts. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternatives, but the provided contexts are clear and actionable.

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