contradiction.conflicts.list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only operation' is redundant. It adds some context by specifying the data is 'stored' and 'enriched,' but does not disclose pagination behavior or other operational traits beyond what annotations cover.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the core querying purpose, then describe the output, confirm read-only behavior, and close with the intended use case. Every sentence contributes value with no filler.

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 schema fully documents parameters and enums, an output schema exists for return values, and annotations cover safety. The description adds the usage context and enrichment details, making the tool fully understandable for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description summarizes the filter dimensions but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Queries'), a resource ('stored contradiction records'), and the exact filtering dimensions (status, severity, type, confidence). It also clarifies the returned shape (enriched records with claim summaries and source details), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like conflicts.get and conflicts.scan.

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 a clear intended use: 'Use this tool to prioritize and triage conflicts.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose context is clear and sufficient for a query/list tool.

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