codemerge_check

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

Despite having no annotations, the description discloses an important side effect: it 'records the current main HEAD for CAS comparison at merge time.' It also summarizes the return behavior (clean status and conflict list), which is useful beyond the raw schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: one-sentence purpose, one-sentence behavior/side-effect, and a minimal Args list. No filler or repetition of the schema's structural details.

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 tool is a straightforward check with two parameters and an output schema, and the description covers purpose, side effect, and parameters. It could be slightly richer about what happens when main_changed_files is omitted or what 'CAS comparison' entails, but nothing critical is missing.

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 provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining session_id as 'the merge session ID' and main_changed_files as 'Files changed on main since base (optional, for overlap check).' Both parameters receive meaningful semantic context.

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: 'Check for overlapping file claims with other sessions.' It clearly states the core purpose and the possible outcome (clean/proceed vs conflicts), though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like codemerge_claims or claims_check.

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?

Usage context is implied by phrases like 'clean to proceed' and 'at merge time,' suggesting the tool is a pre-flight check before continuing a merge. However, the description never states when not to use it or names alternative tools for related checking tasks.

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