radar

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: 'dry-run' signals a non-mutating scan, and it explains the meaning of the TEXTUAL/STRUCTURAL and UNSTABLE result codes the agent will encounter. It omits cost/latency and scope (how many worktrees are scanned, whether it requires an integration target to exist), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the mechanism, then the interpretation guidance, then the retry rule. The second sentence is dense with em-dashes and jargon ('uncommitted direction already collides'), which slightly raises reading cost but nothing is filler.

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-parameter, no-annotations, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the important missing context: what it scans, that it is a dry run, and how to read its result codes. Preconditions such as needing an integration target or dirty worktree state are implied rather than stated.

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 argument meaning to convey and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not waste space on inputs.

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 a concrete action—dry-run merges (git merge-tree) between dirty worktree snapshots and the integration target—so the agent knows this is a pre-merge conflict prediction scan. It does not name any sibling (check, status, land_status) as an alternative, so differentiation still requires inference.

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?

Timing guidance is implied rather than stated: 'coordinate now, not at merge time' suggests running before a merge, and 'UNSTABLE means a snapshot tore mid-scan: rerun' gives a retry rule. There is no explicit when-not-to-use and no pointer to which sibling to pick instead.

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