check_attribute_conflicts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It indicates the tool is a detector (read-only), but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The description is sufficient for basic understanding but lacks depth on non-obvious behavior.

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 convey the core purpose and mechanism efficiently. The first sentence provides a clear action and examples, the second explains the parsing approach. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description explains the detection logic but omits what the tool returns (e.g., list of conflicts, error messages). It does not mention prerequisites or side effects. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds general context for the tool's operation but does not elaborate on parameter specifics beyond what the schema provides. For example, it does not explain how 'htmlText' should be formatted or what 'tagName' values are valid.

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 clearly states the tool detects conditional attributes used without guard conditions, with concrete examples ('target' without 'href', 'min'/'max' on non-number inputs). It also explains the parsing mechanism ('Only used when' patterns). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_html_usage, which likely have broader scope.

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 implies usage for validating attribute interactions in custom elements, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., check_html_usage or check_event_usage). No exclusions or context are provided.

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