amu_check_conflict

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the return is deliberately limited to department names and hashes, never values or lineage, and the reason is an access-control ('gate') rationale. It still omits permission requirements, rate limits, and what a positive vs negative conflict result implies operationally.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its conflict criterion, followed by the return-scope limitation. Dense but every clause carries information; the term 'gate' is used without prior definition, which costs a little clarity.

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 the description does not need to enumerate return fields, and it still usefully bounds what is returned. For a read-only conflict check the remaining gap is authorization/error behavior, which is minor relative to the schema and the side-channel disclosure.

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 0% across three required parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies metric_name and the role of definition_hash (derivation identity) in the conflict test, but says nothing about the format of the hash or what owner_department means or controls.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: check whether another department has recorded a conflicting definition of the same metric_name, with the conflict condition defined parenthetically (same name, different derivation/hash). It is clearly distinguishable from amu_record and amu_search in function, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'cannot become a side channel around the gate' implies this is a pre-write/pre-record check against a gating workflow, but the description never says when to call it versus amu_record or amu_search, nor does it state preconditions or ordering.

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