get_table_lock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what information the tool retrieves but doesn't describe how it behaves: whether it requires specific permissions, if it's read-only or has side effects, what format the output takes, or any performance characteristics. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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?

The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no unnecessary elaboration. This represents optimal conciseness for a simple diagnostic tool.

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 diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It states what information the tool retrieves but provides no context about output format, data structure, interpretation of results, or how the information might be used. Given the complexity of lock diagnostics and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.

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 (schema coverage 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. With no parameters, the baseline score is 4 as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取当前mysql服务器行级锁、表级锁情况' (Check if there are row-level locks or table-level locks in the current MySQL server). It uses specific verbs ('获取'/'Check') and identifies the resource (MySQL server locks). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_db_health_running, which might also provide server status information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or how it differs from sibling tools like get_db_health_running or execute_sql. The agent receives no usage context beyond the basic purpose statement.

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