get_conflicts

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

Despite having readOnlyHint, description adds behavior details: read-only nature, output structure (JSON with conflict count, actionable count, list with fields), and parameter defaults. No contradiction.

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?

Description is compact and well-organized: action, behavior, output, parameters, and usage guidance all covered in 3 sentences without redundancy or unnecessary 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?

Comprehensive for a tool with 2 optional params and no output schema: explains purpose, output shape, parameter semantics, and alternatives. No missing critical information.

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 only provides type/status as strings without descriptions. Description fully explains allowed values ('all'|'token'|'component', 'all'|'pending'|'resolved') and defaults (all), compensating for schema 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?

Clearly states the tool returns conflicts between design sources, with a specific verb and resource. Differentiates from siblings by explicitly directing resolved-value lookups to get_token/get_component.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (audit disagreements between sources) and when not to (for resolved values, use other tools). Provides context with example (Figma vs codebase).

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