get_conflicts

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

Declares 'Read-only, no side effects' and describes return format (JSON with conflict count, actionable count, and list with fields). Since no annotations provided, description adds good behavioral context.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant phrases. 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?

With no output schema, description adequately covers return structure and parameters. Lacks details on authorization or edge cases, but sufficient for typical use.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), but description lists valid values for type ('all', 'token', 'component') and status ('all', 'pending', 'resolved'), adding needed semantics beyond plain string schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get conflicts between design sources' and distinguishes from siblings by directing to use get_token or get_component for resolved design 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?

Explicitly states when to use ('audit disagreements between sources') and when not to use ('For resolved design values, use get_token or get_component instead'), with parameter guidance for type and status.

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