check_conflicts

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world traits. The description adds valuable behavioral context not in annotations: the conflict logic (time vs. date overlap), the impact of missing data (complete=false), and the certainty levels of conflicts (confirmed/possible). It does not mention performance or limits, but this is a pure check function.

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, dense but well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the two input methods and follows with the core conflict logic and edge cases. It is concise without being cryptic, though the sentence 'Times that touch do not conflict; dates and weekdays must overlap' could be clearer.

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 lack of parameter descriptions in the schema (0% coverage) and no output schema, the description does a fair job of explaining the tool's purpose and conflict rules. However, it leaves parameter details (like the 'term' parameter's role or the expected structure of 'sections') unaddressed, which is a notable gap for a tool with nested inputs. Overall, it provides enough context to use the tool but not to use it optimally.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description mentions 'section_ids' and 'sections' inputs but provides no details on their format, constraints, or the optional 'term' parameter. The description partially compensates by explaining the two input modes, but significant gaps remain for a tool with 3 parameters and complex nested objects.

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 its purpose: checking section conflicts by validating overlapping times, dates, and weekdays. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing 'get_sections' as a data source. The term 'VSB data' is domain-specific but slightly unclear to an uninitiated agent.

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?

Explicitly provides two usage modes: passing 'section_ids' against VSB or passing 'sections' objects from get_sections. It also clarifies the conflict rule (times touching are fine; dates/weekdays must overlap). It lacks guidance on when to choose one input mode over the other or prerequisites.

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