List merge conflicts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by defining the side semantics (`ours`=this folder, `theirs`=the web, `base`=common ancestor) and the `which`-passes-to-deck_resolve linkage, which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and return shape, then appends the workflow tip. Dense but every clause carries information; the enumerated field list is the bulk and is justified by the tool's structured output.

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?

With an output schema present and the sole parameter documented, the description needn't restate return types, yet it appropriately explains the semantic meaning of the side labels and `which`. Complete for an agent to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single `dir` parameter is fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no `dir` detail, but it doesn't need to.

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+resource ('Every unresolved merge conflict in the deck's files') and enumerates the structured fields returned. An agent can immediately distinguish this read-only listing from deck_resolve, which acts on the returned indexes.

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 closing 'Read both sides before choosing' plus the note that `which` feeds deck_resolve establishes the workflow context: list first, then resolve. No explicit when-not guidance, but the relationship to deck_resolve is clear enough to route correctly.

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