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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to state that it is a read operation. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the exact structure of the return data (conflict id, claim_a/claim_b, node ids) and the semantic meaning of 'open' conflicts. This is helpful context but not exhaustive (no mention of pagination or ordering), so it earns a 4.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the return format is specified, and the usage hint is appended at the end without redundancy. Every sentence serves a distinct function, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description completely explains what is returned and how it fits into the workflow (before resolution). It does not cover edge cases or error conditions, but these are less critical for a read-only list operation. Given the annotations and schema, nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly 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 single `workspace` parameter is fully documented in the schema with a 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter or how it interacts with the tool's behavior. Per the calibration rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not exceed that baseline.

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 begins with a specific verb-resource pair ('List open memory conflicts') and immediately defines what a conflict is ('pairs of stored claims that contradict each other'), distinguishing it from other tools. It also states exactly what is returned (conflict id, both claims, node ids), which clarifies its scope. This clearly separates it from siblings like `resolve` and `superseded`.

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 says 'Use before `resolve`', which gives an explicit temporal relationship to a sibling tool, signaling when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for different situations, but the context of 'awaiting the user's decision' implies this is the prerequisite step for resolving conflicts. This provides basic but clear usage guidance.

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