Pg Locks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses essentially nothing. It does not state that this is a read-only inspection, whether elevated privileges are required, whether querying it can be expensive or blocking, or what side effects exist. The noun phrase only weakly implies an observe-only intent.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. A single noun phrase does not 'earn its place' because it conveys almost no content; there is no front-loaded verb, no scoping statement, and no information that a longer phrasing could not have compressed.

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?

The presence of an output schema alleviates the need to explain return values, yet the definition remains incomplete where it matters most: no usage guidance, no sibling differentiation, no parameter semantics, and no behavioral disclosure. Among 60+ sibling tools, an agent has too little evidence to decide when to invoke pg_locks correctly.

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 0%, and the sole 'params' property is an undocumented free-form object. The description adds zero semantic meaning about what can be passed (e.g., database filters, lock-type filters, limits). The optional parameter with a null default means the tool can be invoked without arguments, which keeps this from a 1, but any non-trivial parameter use is completely unguided.

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 'Блокировки и заблокированные запросы' ('Locks and blocked queries') is a noun phrase that restates the tool name with no verb, action, or resource detail. It gestures at added meaning (blocked queries) but never says what the tool does with locks or how it differs from siblings like pg_activity, pg_connections, or pg_stats. The Russian wording also adds language friction against an English-named tool.

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?

There is no guidance at all on when to reach for pg_locks versus the many sibling PostgreSQL diagnostic tools (pg_activity, pg_connections, pg_slow_queries, pg_stats, pg_replication). No conditions, no exclusions, no prerequisites are stated; the agent must guess when this tool is the right one.

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