List conflicts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond that: one task can appear in several lists (no deduplication), units are hours, dates follow the project convention, and there is no undo step. These are the kind of traits an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the trailing sentences are short and information-dense. The six-category enumeration makes the single sentence long, but each item earns its place by defining a selectable category, so it is informative rather than padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described. Given a single optional enum parameter, the description covers scope, category semantics, overlap behavior, units, and read-only status — everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum is self-documenting, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes further by explaining what each category actually means ('delayed (tasks lagging behind the status date)', 'overload (overallocated resources)', 'crossProjectDependencies ... together with their float'), which is semantic value the enum labels alone do not convey.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Reads the six conflict lists of the info sheet as a flat YAML report') and then enumerates all six categories with a one-phrase gloss for each. This distinguishes it cleanly from sibling report tools such as rillsoft_analysis_report_get and rillsoft_variance_report_get without the agent needing to open any schema.

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 rather than stated: 'The same selection as the tabs of that sheet' tells the agent the categories correspond to UI tabs, and the schema says to omit 'category' for all lists. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the other reporting siblings (variance_report_get, analysis_report_get, resource_usage_list), nor any stated preconditions.

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