check_conflict

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, no LLM interaction, detects contradictions (value change, numeric/negation clash), returns conflicting records, and notes that pure duplicates do not flag. It also states 'Detects, never writes' and instructs to call remember() manually.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. It is concise but includes necessary details; a few sentences could be tightened, but overall it is efficient.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values are covered. However, the description lacks explanation for the 'object' parameter and omits prerequisites or error conditions. It adequately covers usage context but has minor gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all 3 parameters. It explains 'text' (the fact to check) and 'key' (managed key), but the 'object' parameter is completely omitted, leaving a significant gap.

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 clearly states the tool is a 'WRITE-TIME conflict check (read-only, no LLM)' and specifies it checks for contradictions before remembering a fact, distinguishing it from siblings like 'remember' and 'contradictions'.

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 explicitly says 'BEFORE you remember() a fact' and directs to call remember() after, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternative tools for other scenarios.

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