overlaps

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what is compared, which usefully implies a read-only analytical operation, but it says nothing about cost, latency, scope of scanning, or whether the report is exhaustive or sampled.

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: the first defines the output dimensions, the second the usage conditions. Nothing is wasted and the substance is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description partly compensates by listing the three report categories. There are no annotations to cover safety or mutability either, but the tool is clearly a read/report operation and only the response format and limits remain underspecified.

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 limit and active_within_minutes are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning such as windowing semantics or how truncation via limit affects the collision analysis, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

It states a specific verb (report) and resource (collision risk between DSH sessions) and enumerates the three concrete dimensions detected: overlapping file touches, shared workspaces, and duplicate git commands in one repo. That level of detail clearly separates it from siblings like peers or session_detail.

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?

It gives explicit triggering conditions: before editing a repo another session is working in, or when the user asks whether two sessions will clash. It does not name alternative tools (e.g. peers) or say when not to use it, so it stops just short of a 5.

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