detect_dependency_conflicts

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds valuable context beyond them: it discloses that results are an 'approximation of a full project resolve' and points to notes[] for limitations, and it explains the mediation logic (nearest-wins vs highest-wins) that shapes the reported pick. This goes meaningfully beyond the structured fields.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mechanism, with the approximation caveat last. Every sentence carries information; the only minor cost is jargon density (GAs, mediation), which is acceptable for a developer-facing tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers mechanism, output semantics (which version wins), and limitations via notes[]. Given the tool's moderate complexity and full annotation/schema coverage, this is nearly complete; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of Maven nearest-wins and Gradle highest-wins loosely reinforces the buildSystem parameter's purpose, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (detect version conflicts) and goes further by explaining the mechanism: unioning deps.dev transitive graphs for each direct dependency and flagging GAs at ≥2 versions. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_transitive_graph (which returns a graph) and scan_project_dependencies (which scans a project).

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 implies the usage context (conflict detection with mediation strategy reporting) but never explicitly states when to choose this over alternatives such as check_multiple_dependencies, get_transitive_graph, or audit_project_dependencies. No when-not conditions or named alternatives are provided, so the agent must infer routing.

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