detect_conflicts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the scan targets known conflict combinations, but doesn't specify whether it modifies anything, read-only nature, or what actions it takes. It's fairly clear it's a read operation, but lacks details on output or side effects.

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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and provides concrete examples of conflict types. It's concise and structured well, though it could benefit from a brief mention of parameters.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (checking known conflicts) and absence of output schema or annotations, the description gives a reasonable overview but omits parameter semantics and output details. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to invoke without further inference.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters (mc_dir and instance_id). With no parameter descriptions in the schema and none in the text, the agent must infer their meaning, which is a significant gap.

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 scans the mods/ directory for known conflict combinations, listing specific examples (renderer conflicts, UI lib duplicates, JEI duplicates, Fabric API duplicates). This distinguishes it from siblings like check_mod_dependencies (which likely checks individual dependencies) and scan_cleanliness (which may check something else).

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 when checking for known mod conflicts, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like check_mod_dependencies. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative suggestions, falling short of full usage guidelines.

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