check_conflicts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers. It explains the two detection levels, clarifies that claim_overlap only exists where intent was declared, and warns that an unknown branch yields an explicit 'status':'unknown' object rather than an empty list, preventing misinterpretation of all-clear results.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the main purpose, then uses bullet-like lines to describe the two levels, followed by the scoping rule. Each sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations, this description is thorough. It covers the tool's behavior, edge cases, and scoping options, while the presence of an output schema means return-value details are already represented elsewhere. It fully enables an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema provides only a parameter name and default, with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining the semantics of against_branch: it checks one specific branch, while the default checks all peer branches in active claims. It also mentions the edge case of naming a branch with no active claim.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Detect conflicts between your branch and your partners' branches.' It clearly distinguishes the tool's intent from siblings by naming two concrete output levels, claim_overlap and merge_conflict, which are unique to conflict checking.

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 clear context on when to use the tool and how to vary its scope: 'default checks every branch named in a peer's active claim' and 'against_branch lets you check one specific branch.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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