list_source_conflicts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that conflicts are deliberately not auto-resolved because picking a winner could retire the wrong document, which is important context. It does not fully disclose side effects or auth requirements, but the verb 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation.

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 focused sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and definition, the second provides the rationale and names the resolver tool. No filler or repetition.

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?

The definition is complete for a paginated list tool: output schema exists, parameters are documented in the schema, and the associated repair tool is pointed to. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and both limit and cursor already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable because the schema fully documents them.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource ('List documents whose source file name collides') and defines the term 'source conflict'. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling repair_source_conflict and from generic list_documents.

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?

Explicitly explains when this tool is appropriate—when conflicts were never auto-resolved—and gives the alternative: 'Use repair_source_conflict to resolve one.' It also provides the rationale for why this tool exists in the first place.

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