get_input_conflicts

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful scope constraint: only duplicates within the same action map are reported, so cross-map overlaps are out of scope. It does not state that the tool is read-only, what the result set looks like, or whether it scans all input assets or only the current project context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope qualifier placed after the resource, so the key information arrives first and nothing is padded. It is slightly telegraphic (a fragment rather than a sentence), which costs a little readability but no waste.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema scan the description covers what is checked but not what an agent gets back or how to interpret an empty result versus a clean project. Adequate to trigger a correct call, but thin for acting on the response.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a whole-project scan with no filtering arguments.

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?

"Conflict scan: duplicate bindings inside the same action map" names a specific resource (input bindings) and the exact defect class it detects (duplicates), which separates it from siblings like get_input_actions_summary and get_input_axes that enumerate actions rather than check them. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, so it is clear but not maximally crisp.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: an agent would call this when auditing an Input System setup for duplicate bindings. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. the New Input System package must be active), and no pointer to a sibling for other input checks, so the guidance remains inferential.

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