value_conflicts

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

The description discloses the key behavioral detail that conflict relationships are bidirectional, which is not obvious from the name or schema alone. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention performance, authorization needs, or what happens if the value has no conflicts, but for a single-param read operation with no annotations, the disclosed bidirectionality is sufficient context.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the core functionality in the first sentence. Every word is purposeful, and no redundant or filler content exists. The second sentence adds essential clarifying detail (bidirectionality). It could be more concise by merging the two sentences, but the clarity gained warrants the length.

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 tool with a single required parameter, a clear purpose, and no annotations or output schema details needed (the output schema exists but description needn't explain it), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool does, how the parameter works, and a key behavioral trait. A minor gap is the omission of what happens when no conflicts exist (empty list implied) or whether the tool requires an existing value.

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%, meaning the description adds all meaning for the parameter. It explains that value_id is a value whose conflicts will be returned, adding context that the schema alone lacks (schema only provides type string). This is adequate but not exceptional – baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not specify the format or constraints of value_id (e.g., ID vs name, required prefix).

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'all values in tension with a given value.' It explicitly distinguishes its scope from sibling tools like value_read (which would presumably read a single value) and value_list (which lists all values), by focusing on the specific conflict relationship and bidirectional nature.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to find conflicting/conflicted relationships for a given value. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling context (value_read, value_list) provides indirect differentiation. A small gap is the lack of guidance on prerequisites (e.g., value must exist).

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