detect_config_overlaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only static analysis behavior ('find', 'surface'), but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify files, what happens if the config paths are invalid, or whether it scans the entire project tree. The description gives some insight into the tool's purpose but lacks a clear statement of side effects or limitations.

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 a concise two-sentence structure. The first sentence front-loads the primary function, and the second sentence adds practical usage context. No redundant words or filler. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the core purpose and a common use case. It does not specify the return value format, but no output schema exists to compensate. It could be improved by stating what the tool returns, but overall it provides a reasonably complete picture for a simple analysis 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?

The input schema already provides a complete description of the single parameter (configPaths: 'Two or more absolute paths to tsconfig.json files to compare'). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add additional parameter details. It does not, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 function with specific verbs: 'find source files compiled by more than one tsconfig' and 'surface option conflicts.' It names concrete examples of conflicts (strict, module, target) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_effective_compiler_options or resolve_module_alias by focusing on overlapping compilation and option conflicts.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Essential for monorepos where tsconfig.app.json and tsconfig.spec.json share the same src/ tree with incompatible settings.' This provides context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools. Thus it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar for a score of 4.

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