Check conflicts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses return semantics (ok=false means a violation) despite there being no output schema, but says nothing about permissions, whether it is strictly read-only, or what it does when no rules exist.

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 tight sentences with no waste; the core action is front-loaded and the result interpretation follows immediately.

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 two-parameter read-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, inputs, and the key return signal. Minor gaps remain around the ok=true case and file path expectations.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters, and it does: 'change' is explained as a diff, plan or description, and 'files' as touched files. It lacks format details (e.g., repo-relative paths) but meaningfully covers both 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 specific verb (check) and resource (a proposed change) and names the comparison target (active constraint rules). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_constraints or record_decision.

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 implied: you check a proposed change before applying it. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., 'list_constraints first to see the rules'), so the agent must infer the workflow context.

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