conflict_wagon

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

With no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses error handling (unknown uid returns error), read-only guarantee, single GET request, no auto-pagination, response limits (100 rows/256 KiB) with truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. It also clarifies filter forwarding semantics. This goes well beyond basic expectations.

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?

Description is dense but every sentence adds value, covering purpose, error behavior, safety, network behavior, pagination, limits, and filter semantics. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically.

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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers return content (card list, contribution values), error handling, and limits. No gaps that would prevent correct invocation.

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 0%, but description clarifies that uid is the explicit identifier and required. It adds semantic meaning ('explicit uid') beyond the schema's plain string type, and notes that required inputs reflect policy. However, it doesn't specify format beyond that, but with only one param, this is sufficient.

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?

States specific verb 'read', resource 'wagon', and scope 'by explicit uid'. Distinguishes from other conflict_* tools by specifying it's a single-wagon read, and explicitly notes it never stakes or removes cards, reinforcing read-only nature.

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?

Implies usage when you have a uid and want wagon details, but does not mention alternative tools or when not to use. The note about 'required inputs reflect tool policy' hints at necessity but doesn't provide exclusions or alternatives.

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