relay_detect_conflicts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return payload ('Returns both facts and their shared parent') — useful since no output schema exists. However, it says nothing about read-only safety, scoping (workspace-wide vs. current context), cost, or behavior when no conflicts exist, so significant behavioral gaps remain.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the first defines the concept being detected, the second states the return shape. Front-loaded with the verb and object, and every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-param, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core concept and the return shape, which is the minimum an agent needs. It omits scope, empty-result behavior, and any follow-up path (e.g., relay_resolve_conflict), so it is adequate but not complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument scan rather than suggesting any filtering input.

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 ('Find') and a precisely defined resource ('forks: pairs of facts that build on the same parent but say different things'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling relay_resolve_conflict (detect vs. resolve), but never names an alternative, so it stops short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

The description says what the tool finds but never states when to reach for it versus relay_get_context, relay_get_clusters, or relay_resolve_conflict. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no indication of what to do with the results (e.g., pass to relay_resolve_conflict), leaving the agent to infer usage.

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