check_conflict

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral nuance beyond that: the handling of negated restatements as conflicts rather than duplicates, the exact return status vocabulary, and the internal call from record_decision. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious logic an agent needs to predict tool behavior.

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 but every sentence earns its place: first the core purpose, then the critical negated-restatement nuance, then the return shape, then the call-timing guidance. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important operational detail is front-loaded.

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, idempotent check tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the input concept, the return envelope, the edge-case behavior, and the relationship to record_decision. An agent has everything it needs to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result at a practical level.

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%, so the schema already fully documents decision_text and file_path, including file_path's preference for same-file hits. The description reinforces the meaning of decision_text by calling it a 'proposed decision' and relating it to record_decision, but it does not add new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: checking whether a proposed decision contradicts or duplicates existing decisions. It also names the concrete behavioral rule for negated restatements, which sharply distinguishes this from sibling tools like record_decision. The return statuses are listed, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly says to call this BEFORE record_decision, and even explains that record_decision internally runs the same check and surfaces _conflict_warning unless force=true. This gives the agent a clear procedural rule and a direct comparison to the alternative, so there is no guessing about when this tool is appropriate.

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