lockout_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and usefully discloses that it makes no router contact and explains the lockout concept. Still, it does not clarify freshness, caching, read-only implications, or the exact return shape, which leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core status question and adds only the important 'No router contact' operational detail.

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 zero-parameter status tool, the description gives enough context to understand what is returned: lockout state and last lockout outcome. Without an output schema, the exact response format is not specified, but the low complexity keeps this from being a major gap.

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 parameter semantics are not applicable and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any input values.

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 states a specific status query: whether the router is still applying a write via a locked control port, plus the outcome of the last lockout. It is clear what the tool reports, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as list_writes or router_snapshot.

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 implied by the name and description: check lockout status when investigating write application state. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_writes or router_snapshot, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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