unw_conflicts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real semantics: half-open interval comparison and exemption for linked lecture/lab pairs. It says nothing about whether results come from a live SIS query or a cache (the refresh flag hints at caching), nothing about permission or rate constraints, and nothing about ordering of the reported pairs.

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 dense sentences, no filler, and the core verb phrase leads. The exemption rule is packed into a compact clause rather than a paragraph.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description correctly explains what comes back (conflict pairs, week grid, unscheduled sections), which is the most important gap filled. However, for a tool whose output is a rendered ASCII grid, the description says nothing about size, formatting, or how an agent should consume that text, and it leaves term and refresh undefined.

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 0% and none of the three parameters is documented. The phrase 'CRN set' loosely maps to crns and the acceptance of a single string/integer or a list is left for the schema to show, but term format and the meaning of refresh are completely unexplained in the description.

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 names a specific computation (pairwise time conflicts over a CRN set) and adds the two extra outputs (ASCII week grid, unscheduled TBA list). That is far more specific than the bare name 'unw_conflicts' and readable without opening the schema, though it does not name a sibling such as unw_register_preview to disambiguate the scheduling-check family.

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 usage scenario is implied by the content: check a candidate set of CRNs for clashes before registering. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives like unw_register_preview or unw_audit, so the agent must infer routing from the purpose alone.

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