arbiter_resolve

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. States read-only ('never writes'), zero-knowledge decryption, output categories (compatible/auto_resolvable/conflict) with confidence, risk read, and tier. Does not cover error handling or authentication, but sufficient.

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?

Single paragraph, front-loaded with purpose. All sentences add information, though slightly verbose. Good structure overall.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return categories and tier system. Covers prerequisites and relationships to sibling tools. Complete for understanding the tool's role.

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 coverage 100% gives baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining overlaps come from Stop collision report, details each field, and notes that forkAuthor and workspaceId are auto-detected unless overridden.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'AI verdict for live code overlaps', specifies it is SUGGEST-ONLY, never writes. Differentiates from sibling tools like get_resolution_context and arbiter_apply.

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 says when to use: 'Use it to understand a forming conflict before acting.' Also provides when to use alternatives: for tier-2/3 overlaps, use get_resolution_context; to apply, use arbiter_apply.

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