conflict_wagon

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses a great deal: no staking/removing, unknown-uid error semantics, one GET with no continuation-page auto-fetch, truncation limits of 100 rows and 256 KiB, and refusal of oversized records. This gives the agent a solid safety and output-contract model.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded with the core read action, and every behavioral sentence adds information. The phrases about tool-policy requirements and forwarded filters are generic and slightly redundant against the one-property schema, keeping it from a 5.

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, it explains the key return expectations: complete card list, original contribution values, truncation reporting, and error behavior. It does not describe the exact response object shape or status-code details, but for a one-parameter read tool the essentials are covered.

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?

The schema only says uid is a required string with no description, so the description adds meaning: 'explicit uid' and the unknown-uid error behavior imply that the value is the wagon identifier and must exist. It could go further with format or source guidance, but for a single required parameter 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read one wagon by explicit uid,' and clarifies scope with 'complete card list and original contribution values.' This clearly distinguishes it from the many conflict_* sibling tools, which are lists, seasons, players, or rankings.

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 a clear triggering condition: use this when you have an explicit wagon uid, and it describes single-GET/no-pagination behavior. It does not, however, name a sibling alternative for cases like needing filtered or paginated wagon data, so it stops 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.