detect_intent_conflicts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It explains the tool finds and returns scored conflict candidates with specific fields, and notes the list is informational. This sets appropriate expectations. It does not explicitly state whether it modifies data, but given the purpose, it is clearly read-only. Minor improvement could be an explicit read-only hint.

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-organized with a clear summary, 'When to use' section, 'Inputs of note', 'Returns' section with bulleted fields, and a closing note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, nested objects), the description covers all essential aspects: tool purpose, appropriate usage scenario, key inputs with rationale, and the structure of the return value. It fits well among sibling tools without gaps. No further detail is needed for typical use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by highlighting intentId and minScore with contextual explanations beyond the schema ('the active intent to check against', 'minimum match score to include in results'). For other parameters (repoPath, forkAuthor, etc.), the schema descriptions suffice. This extra context for key parameters justifies a 4.

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 uses specific verb 'find' and resource 'conflicting intents' from other team members against the active intent. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_team_intents (which lists all team intents) and get_intents_for_file (by file), making the tool's unique purpose immediately clear.

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 explicitly states 'When to use: Before committing, to surface overlapping team work so the user can coordinate before merging.' This provides clear situational guidance. While it doesn't list explicit alternatives or exclusions, the use case is well-defined and implies when not to use (e.g., when only listing intents). Could include more explicit 'when not to use' but still strong.

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