detect_conflicts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, what it returns (only that output schema exists), or side effects. The sparse description does not add behavioral context beyond the verb 'find.'

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 extremely concise (5 words) but sacrifices essential information. It is front-loaded, but the lack of detail makes it insufficient. Every word is earned, but much more is needed to be helpful.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not define what constitutes a conflict, the format of the range, or how results are structured. The output schema exists but the description adds no completeness.

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 0%, but the description does not mention any parameter meaning. It does not clarify that 'start' and 'end' define the time range or that 'calendar' is optional. The agent gets no param insight beyond the raw schema.

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 states 'Find overlapping shifts in a range,' which clearly indicates the tool detects shift conflicts. It differentiates from siblings like 'list_shifts' or 'get_shift' by specifying conflict detection. However, it could be more explicit about the domain (Supershift app) and the nature of 'conflicts' (time overlapping).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, expected input patterns, or exclude cases where no overlap is expected. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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