detect_conflicts

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains what conflicts are detected (structural) and what are not (semantic), and mentions lock contention and drop dependencies. However, it does not describe output format or performance characteristics, leaving minor gaps.

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 sentences: first defines purpose, second gives usage and limitation. No unnecessary 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?

Given sibling tools complexity and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies scope and limitations. However, it lacks any indication of what the tool returns, which would be helpful for a conflict detection tool.

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 is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter meaning beyond the schema; it merely states the tool's purpose which implies the parameters are migration files. No additional syntax or format details are provided.

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 detects structural conflicts between two SQL migration files, listing specific types (same-table, same-column, lock contention, drop dependencies). It differentiates from siblings like analyze_migration by focusing on conflict detection between two files.

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 says 'Use this when two migrations touch the same schema objects and you need to know if ordering or concurrent execution matters.' It also notes a limitation: semantic conflicts like different indexes are not reported, providing when-not-to-use guidance.

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