align_get_conflicts

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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real value on top: it discloses the pagination contract, that conflict_count is the exact total while the links list is one page, and that a message flags truncation. It even warns against a specific misuse (presenting a partial page as complete). It stops short of describing ordering, page size, or what a conflict entry looks like.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the return-value caveat; nothing is redundant. The second sentence is slightly convoluted with its chained clauses about the links list and the message, but no words are wasted.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description carries the necessary return-shape burden and does so (conflict_count, links page, truncation message). Only the structure of an individual conflict record is left unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no schema gap to compensate for. The baseline for a zero-param tool applies cleanly.

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 (List) and resource (conflicts and contradictions in the decision graph), which an agent can map onto the align_get_* family without ambiguity. It does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from, but the subject matter is narrow enough to stand on its own.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the tool to call when it needs conflicts in the decision graph. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g. align_check_drift or align_get_impact) and no stated preconditions, but for a zero-parameter read tool the implied context is adequate.

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