check_overlap

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the result is read-only and that the query should describe the intended task. It reinforces the readOnlyHint and clarifies the intended comparison workflow without contradicting the annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds usage and read-only context. No filler or redundant explanation is present.

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 simple read-only search tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers when to use it, what the query should contain, and the read-only nature. The only minor gap is the unmentioned limit parameter, but the schema provides enough information for a competent agent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of query ("should describe the intended task") but does not mention limit or its effect on result count. Limit semantics are left to inference from the schema's name and default value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Find open threads that may overlap a planned task." It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_open_threads by focusing on overlap detection against a planned task, not just listing threads.

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?

It explicitly says "Use before starting potentially new work" and advises comparing matches before creating another thread. It does not name sibling alternatives or describe when not to use the tool, but the primary usage context is clear.

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