entangled_list_locks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It at least discloses that this is a read-style listing and that the scope is the whole workspace with no filtering, but it says nothing about permissions/auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the result can be paginated — all relevant for an agent operating in a concurrent lock environment.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, naming the verb, resource, and scope immediately. The [ENTANGLED] prefix tags the family cheaply without padding the description.

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?

A no-parameter read tool with an output schema that already documents the return shape, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The remaining gap is behavioral (auth/pagination), which is small but not negligible for a workspace-wide listing.

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 per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is 100% regardless, and no compensating parameter prose is needed.

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 (Lists) and resource (currently active resource locks) with an explicit scope (across the entire workspace). The read verb naturally separates it from sibling mutations like entangled_acquire_lock and entangled_release_lock, though it never names those siblings to make the distinction airtight.

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?

Usage is only implied: a listing tool is obviously used to inspect current lock state, and 'across the entire workspace' hints that no filtering is offered. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to entangled_acquire_lock/entangled_release_lock for the write-side operations.

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