analyze_conflicts

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description reinforces this with an explicit 'Read-only diagnostic' statement and adds what the tool produces (conflict pairs with suggestions). It adds value beyond annotations by describing the nature of the analysis and its output.

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 short paragraphs, both front-loaded with the core purpose first, then the actionable output, then the usage context. Zero waste—every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, good annotations (readOnly, idempotent), and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description is complete for what's needed. It covers purpose, output nature, and when to run it. No significant gaps for a diagnostic 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (pattern, render_dir) are already well-documented in the schema with defaults and clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze...reported which pairs are fighting for the same frequency band') with clear resource scope (rendered tracks). It gives examples of what it detects (bass vs sub, snare vs bass) and the output type (actionable suggestions). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like auto_mix by being diagnostic.

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 'Run before auto_mix to plan EQ/ducking decisions', naming a sibling tool as the alternative/next step. It provides when-to-use context (before mixing decisions) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it beyond implying it's a diagnostic that precedes auto_mix.

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