conflicts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It conveys that the tool is read-only in nature ('Open' and 'Empty is the normal state') and manages expectations about empty results. However, it does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, response structure, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps.

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 short sentences that deliver core purpose and an important behavioral caveat ('Empty is the normal state'). Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 has no output schema and sparse annotations, so the description must explain return values and expected behavior. It only says 'Open contradictions' without specifying the structure of each conflict, how 'limit' affects output, or whether pagination exists. This leaves an agent under-informed for a tool with one parameter and no output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The schema only provides a type and default, so the agent gets no meaningful semantics beyond the parameter name. Since the tool has one parameter, this is a notable omission, though 'limit' is somewhat self-explanatory.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Open contradictions the compiler could not settle.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'recall' or 'timeline' by focusing on compiler conflicts. However, 'open' is slightly ambiguous (display vs. fetch), so it doesn't quite reach a 5.

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 implied usage context by stating 'Empty is the normal state,' suggesting it is used for checking unresolved conflicts. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention any alternatives or sibling tools. Thus, it is clear but lacks exclusions.

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