conflicts_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine value by disclosing the return payload shape (concept, SHAs, branch, files), which matters since there is no output schema. idempotentHint=false is slightly unusual for a listing tool but nothing in the description contradicts it.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what is listed and what it returns, the second routes to the resolution tool. No filler and no redundancy with the name.

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?

Since no output schema exists, the description appropriately carries the return-field list and points at the follow-up tool. Minor gaps remain, such as scope (per-repo vs global) and whether an empty result is meaningful, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to document or omit. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists open git rebase conflicts') and enumerates the returned fields (concept, local/remote SHAs, branch, files). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling write tool git_conflict_resolve, which is named in the same sentence.

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 an explicit next-step alternative: 'Resolve with git_conflict_resolve (kb-conflict-resolve skill).' This tells the agent which sibling to reach for once it has the conflict list, though it does not spell out prerequisites or when this tool is not appropriate.

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