yaaif_agent_spec_conflicts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the described output fields add context. But it does not explicitly state whether the call has side effects, how results are ordered, or what happens when there are no conflicts.

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 single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: the action, the resource, the scope, and the expected output fields.

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 one-parameter list tool, this is reasonably complete: it describes what is listed and what the results contain. It lacks an explicit explanation of spec_id and any note about empty results, but the core calling context is 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?

The only parameter, spec_id, has zero schema description coverage and the description never mentions it or explains what it refers to. An agent must infer from the tool name alone, so the description provides no semantic value for the required argument.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('unresolved field-level Scenario/catalog conflicts'), and the distinguishing output ('severity and the two competing values'). This clearly separates it from siblings like yaaif_agent_spec_conflict_resolve and other agent-spec tools.

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 intended use is clear: call this when you need to see unresolved field-level conflicts for a spec. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to the conflict_resolve sibling for actually resolving those conflicts, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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