file_lock_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'non-expired' filter, which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not clarify what the output looks like, whether locks are scoped globally or per-workspace/process, or the empty-list case. Meaningful enrichment beyond the bare action is limited.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the diagnostic intent is appended tersely in the second. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return expectations, and it does not—an agent cannot know what is returned per lock (IDs, filenames, holders) or the global scope. For a diagnostics tool that is a notable gap, though the zero-parameter simplicity keeps the shortfall modest.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description adds the 'non-expired' qualifier, which serves as the closest thing to filter semantics, giving some value beyond the empty schema.

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 ('List') and precise resource ('currently held (non-expired) file locks'), with the 'non-expired' qualifier adding important scope. The 'For diagnostics' phrase signals intent. Naturally distinguishes from siblings file_lock_acquire and file_lock_release, which are clearly different actions.

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?

'For diagnostics' is a thin tag rather than substantive guidance. It hints at purpose but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor gives exclusions. Confusion with the lock siblings is low since acquire/release are unambiguous, but the description provides no real routing help.

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