detect_conflicts

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does not state whether this is a read-only scan, whether it is expensive on large repos, how many branches are in scope, or whether it makes any changes. Only the high-level intent is disclosed.

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 well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 zero-parameter tool this is close to complete, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should say what a result looks like (list of conflicting branches? per-file conflicts?) and how the scan is scoped. The agent cannot predict the response shape.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameter-free tool applies. The sentence describes the implicit scope (active branches plus main) without needing argument syntax.

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?

States a specific verb (compare/detect) and resource (active branches vs each other and main, merge conflicts), which is clearer than a generic branch-comparison tool. It is not, however, differentiated from the sibling compare_branches, which appears to cover overlapping ground.

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 rather than stated: the word 'early' hints this is a pre-merge or pre-integration check. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to compare_branches or track_branches as alternatives.

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