check_merge_safety

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It discloses the return risk score (safe/warning/danger), but does not mention side effects (e.g., read-only nature) or execution time. Adequate but could add more detail.

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, concise and well-structured. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded (quick pre-merge safety check).

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 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and return risk score. It lacks details on the exact format of the risk score or any additional output, but is mostly complete.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description adds that the tool analyzes branches for semantic conflicts, but this is implied by the overall purpose and does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: a quick pre-merge safety check analyzing two branches for semantic conflicts. It specifies what it catches (signature changes, etc.) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_branches and list_semantic_changes.

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 implies use before merging by stating 'Quick pre-merge safety check'. It mentions conflicts Git would miss, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives.

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