get_conflict_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only; does not resolve anything,' explicitly naming the side effect it does not perform. It does not describe return shape or edge cases, but for a read-only tool this is a minor gap rather than a serious omission. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the core action, the read-only safety property, and the explicit exclusion of resolve_conflicts. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a read-only conflict-file reading tool, the description plus the fully documented schema covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the description already states that the tool reads file content, and no nested objects or complex return constraints exist.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description explaining its origin, such as 'from start_merge' and 'from the conflict record'. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the schema carries the burden.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read the content of one side of a conflicting file' for the purpose of deciding how to resolve it. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from resolve_conflicts by stating it is read-only and does not resolve anything.

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 clearly states when to use the tool — to read conflict content while deciding a resolution — and when not to use it: 'to choose a resolution (use resolve_conflicts)'. This explicit exclusion and sibling routing leaves little to inference.

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