get_conflicts

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

Discloses read-only, no side effects, and describes return format comprehensively (JSON with conflict count, actionable count, list with type, name, status, fixes). Fully compensates for absence of annotations.

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?

Concise, front-loaded with action and side-effect info, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Fully adequate for a read-only audit tool with two optional enum parameters; covers return structure and usage boundaries despite no output schema or annotations.

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?

Adds full meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage) by listing allowed values and defaults for both parameters ('all' | 'token' | 'component' and 'all' | 'pending' | 'resolved').

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 'Get conflicts between design sources' and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly directing to use get_token or get_component for resolved values.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'Use this to audit disagreements between sources' and exclusion: 'For resolved design values, use get_token or get_component instead.' Also specifies default parameter values.

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