get_conflicts

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains that conflicts indicate areas of contradiction but does not detail what happens after checking (e.g., whether it returns a list, raises warnings, or blocks actions). For a read-only check tool, this is minimally adequate.

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?

Three concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states the action, the second provides context, and the third gives an imperative instruction. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, low complexity), the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the key context of use (before modifying features) and the meaning of conflicts. Missing return value info is acceptable without an output schema.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. According to guidelines, the baseline is 4 for 0 parameters.

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's purpose: to check for open conflicts. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('open conflicts'), and explains what conflicts are (code contradictions). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like flag_conflict and get_decision_log, which have different functions.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'before starting work' and 'before modifying affected features'. It emphasizes the necessity with 'You MUST check conflicts'. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, which would improve clarity.

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