detect_conflicts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'In-memory simulation' productively discloses that nothing is mutated on disk, which is real value. But it omits prerequisites (must the target ref be fetched locally?), behavior on unknown refs, and what the result contains, so the disclosure is only partial.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero redundant clauses; the purpose and the pre-merge framing land immediately.

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 single-parameter, non-mutating check this is close to sufficient. The one gap is that no output schema exists and the description doesn't indicate whether the tool returns a boolean, a conflict list, or per-file details, so a caller can't fully anticipate the response.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents target_ref's meaning and examples. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and mechanism (3-way merge simulation) and the concrete outcome (detect potential merge conflicts before merging), which clearly separates it from siblings like inspect_branch or smart_diff. It never names those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Before merging' implies the triggering workflow, giving an agent a usable usage cue. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as smart_diff or inspect_branch for related pre-merge checks.

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