Overlap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so thoroughly: it discloses expected stack overlap, residual commit semantics, the meaning of patch-equivalence, and explicitly warns that the result is 'a merge-order hint, not a verdict.' It also explains the significance of base markers.

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 dense and information-rich, but it is a single sprawling paragraph that mixes output semantics, caveats, and shell invocation. It is not poorly sized, but better structure (bullets or separation of output categories from usage) would improve scannability.

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 the tool's output structure and command invocation well, which is important given there is no output schema or annotations. However, it omits semantics for four optional parameters and does not provide sibling-tool guidance, leaving some ambiguity for complex calls.

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 clarifies the two required parameters through the command syntax `sct overlap <base> <branch>...`, but it leaves the optional parameters (`kind`, `path`, `repo`, `output_format`) unexplained. This is partial compensation, not complete.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: comparing N branches against one base at their own merge-bases and reporting overlapping structures, names, commits, and base-inclusion criteria. It uses specific verbs and resources, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like find_divergence or scan_diff.

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 when the tool would be used (branch-overlap analysis) and even provides a shell invocation, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as find_divergence or scan_diff. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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