check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that both textual and semantic analysis happen and that the output is a 'mergelock verdict (schema v1)' with actionable findings, which is useful behavioral context. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions or repo state it requires, or how large a comparison it tolerates.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded; the second sentence earns its place by flagging the structured verdict. Slight redundancy with the existing output schema keeps it from a 5.

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?

Given only two optional parameters, full schema description coverage, and an output schema that carries return-value detail, the description covers purpose and result shape adequately. The missing piece is invocation guidance (preconditions, when to prefer this over other checks), which is a modest gap for a low-complexity tool.

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 both parameters document their defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., whether branch names accept refs/commits), so it does not exceed the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (check one branch against another for textual and semantic merge conflicts), which fully disambiguates the generic tool name 'check'. It does not name or differentiate from the sibling 'claims', but that sibling appears unrelated, so the gap is minor.

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 only implied: the agent can infer this is a pre-merge verification step, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. Nothing misleads, but nothing routes the agent either.

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