Check Token Conflicts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying the return type ('list of conflicts found, or an empty list') and giving concrete examples. This goes beyond annotation coverage, though it does not discuss potential performance or error behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes only essential information. Every sentence earns its place: one for functionality, one for invocation and return value.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. The examples of conflict types provide enough context for an agent to decide when to use it, and the return contract is explicitly stated.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'No arguments required,' which is helpful and eliminates any ambiguity about invocation.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Check for token conflicts' with concrete examples ('low contrast color combinations or inconsistent spacing'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ui_check_color_contrast by focusing on token-level conflicts rather than a single contrast check.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'No arguments required' but does not state when to run this check, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from related tools like ui_check_color_contrast or design_get_state.

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