git_conflicts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the domain-specific point that it exposes the three index stages and does not resolve anything, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about ordering, how conflicts are reported, or behavior when no conflicts 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the read-only scope is stated immediately. It is arguably too terse for a tool with an undocumented parameter, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Still, the sole parameter is undocumented and there is no guidance on when to prefer this over git_diff or the resolution tools, leaving a simple read tool only marginally complete.

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?

There is one parameter, 'paths', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The schema only reveals it is an optional array of strings (or null, default null), so an agent gets no explanation that it filters the conflict listing by path or what happens when omitted — the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and a precise resource ('base/ours/theirs index stages'), using correct git terminology that an agent can map to conflict state. It implicitly separates itself from mutating siblings like git_stage or git_restore, but never names an alternative explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'without resolving conflicts' implies the intended context: inspecting conflict stages rather than fixing them. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative for resolution workflows (e.g. git_stage, git_restore, git_continue), leaving routing to inference.

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