check_conflict

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return behavior (conflict list or explicit '没有冲突') and an important edge case: expired claims are not conflicts but trigger a hint about the original terminal. An explicit statement that the tool is read-only would make it fully transparent.

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?

Four compact sentences cover purpose, timing, input format, output behavior, and an edge case, with no filler. The key action is front-loaded.

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 description covers when to use the tool, how to format files, what output to expect, and how expired claims are handled; an output schema also exists. The only residual gap is the unstated semantics of the optional agent/project parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides the required format for the 'files' parameter ('用逗号分隔'), which is valuable, but it leaves the optional 'agent' and 'project' parameters unexplained.

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 opens with '查冲突' and immediately clarifies the resource ('files') and the purpose ('确认这些文件没有被别人占用'). It clearly distinguishes the tool as a check operation relative to the sibling claim/release tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to call the tool: '开工前或收尾前调用'. It does not name alternatives or give exclusion conditions, but the timing guidance provides a clear selection context.

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