Read Conflicts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the result surfaces authors alongside conflicting elements and makes last-writer-wins resolution explicit rather than silent, which tells the agent what the call actually reveals.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the call trigger, then uses a colon to deliver the payload and rationale. It is slightly dense, but each clause (when to call, what it lists, why it matters) 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?

With no parameters, full annotation coverage, and an output schema present, the description only needs to cover calling context and result meaning — both of which it does. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly introduces no non-existent inputs.

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 ('lists') and a precisely scoped resource ('the elements more than one node has written, with their authors'). That scope inherently separates it from siblings like read_graph or search_nodes, which return the graph or matches rather than multi-writer conflicts, so an agent can pick between them without opening schemas.

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?

Gives two concrete trigger conditions: after a write may have been superseded by another machine, and before trusting an edit. That is clear when-to-use guidance, but it names no alternative tool and states no exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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