git_resolve_conflicts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'scan' and 'provide ... options', which suggests a non-mutating read operation, but it does not explicitly state that no files are modified, whether staging is affected, or what happens if no conflicts are found.

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 sentence that immediately communicates the purpose and outcome. There is no filler or repetitive content; every phrase earns its place.

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 tool is simple and the one parameter is well-covered by the schema, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain the form of the resolution options, behavior when no conflicts are found, or whether the tool changes the repository. It gives a general sense but not full completeness.

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% for the single 'cwd' parameter, which is already described as 'Target repository directory path'. The description itself adds no extra meaning, but with full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Scan the repository'), a specific target ('merge conflict markers') and what it produces ('synthesized resolution options'). It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like git_status, git_smart_commit, git_review_diff, and git_release_changelog.

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 usage when merge conflict markers exist, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or when not to use it. The context is adequate but purely implied.

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