intent_conflicts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the detection criteria but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that might be expected to produce a report or mutate state.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and gives concrete criteria. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but without an output schema or annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and how it fits with sibling conflict tools. It lacks details on return format, usage context, and relationship to 'list_conflicts' and 'resolve_conflicts', making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 schema provides no description for 'time_window_minutes' (0% coverage). The description implies this parameter controls the 'short window' threshold, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explicitly state that the parameter defines the window, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 the specific verb 'Detect' and names the resource 'intention clashes', then defines the exact conditions (two active intentions due within a short window, or sharing the same context cue). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_conflicts' (which lists existing conflicts) and 'conflict_advice' (which provides advice).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool over siblings such as 'list_conflicts' or 'resolve_conflicts'. The description defines what it does but does not state use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate.

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