pc_fixer_clean_git_locks

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the mutation (removal) and implies a safety filter by saying 'stale', which tells the agent it shouldn't touch live locks. It does not say how staleness is determined, that deletion is irreversible, or what happens if the lock is held by a running process — meaningful gaps for a destructive operation.

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 well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the action and the resource, with the motivating condition at the end. Nothing redundant, though it is brief enough that it leaves behavioral questions unanswered.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool this is minimally adequate: the agent knows what gets removed and why. It is missing safety context (irreversibility, concurrent process risk) that matters for a file-deleting 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single 'path' parameter is already documented as the workspace root containing .git. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 pair (find and remove) plus the exact resource (stale Git lock files, naming .git/index.lock, .git/HEAD.lock, refs locks). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pc_fixer_diagnose or pc_fixer_auto_heal, which do not target lock files.

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 gives an implied trigger — git operations blocked after crashes or aborted commands — which is useful context for when to reach for this tool. It does not mention alternatives (e.g., pc_fixer_diagnose for diagnosing, pc_fixer_auto_heal for broader repair) or state when NOT to use it, such as when a git process is still running.

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