detect_intent_conflicts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool returns scored conflict candidates with specific fields, that the list is informational, and that review is needed. This gives a good understanding of the tool's read-only nature and expected behavior.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: main purpose, when to use, inputs of note, and returns. Each sentence contributes meaning, and the key information is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview. It explains the most important parameters and the output format. It could be more complete by mentioning all parameters, but the essential information is covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the intentId and minScore parameters with additional context, as well as describing the return fields. Although not all parameters are detailed, the description enhances understanding beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool finds intents from other team members that potentially conflict with the active intent. It uses specific verbs and resources (find, conflicting intents), and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_team_intents or check_active_intent by focusing on conflict detection.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Before committing, to surface overlapping team work so the user can coordinate before merging.' While it doesn't mention when not to use or provide alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for the agent.

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