Check boundary overlaps

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'Pure check' indicating a safe, read-only operation, and 'Returns overlaps and ok' hints at output structure. However, it does not specify whether modifications occur (though it suggests none) or other behaviors like potential failure modes.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('Pure check') and immediately defines the task. Every word is impactful with zero waste.

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?

The description provides minimal context for a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema. It covers the core function and non-destructiveness but omits usage context, parameter details, and how to interpret results beyond 'overlaps and ok.' Given the output schema exists, return values are partially covered.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'plans' but does not describe the inner fields branchSlug or fileBoundaries, leaving the agent without needed context about what constitutes a plan or how boundaries are structured.

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 states 'do any plans share file boundaries?' which clearly identifies the tool as an overlap checker. It uses the verb 'check' and resource 'plans' with 'file boundaries,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like decompose_into_plans and scaffold_worktrees that likely create or manage plans.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description says 'Pure check' implying it's non-destructive, but it does not explain context, prerequisites, or suggest when to use other tools. An agent would not know when to choose this over sibling tools.

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