erinys_conflict_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Detect' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state whether the tool writes, what it returns, what side effects exist, or how contradictions are determined.

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 a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Even though the tool is simple, the description is too minimal. With no annotations and an opaque output schema, it lacks sufficient context for an agent to know what happens when invoked, what the output looks like, or why this tool should be chosen over similar siblings.

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 explain the single observation_id parameter. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify what ID to pass or how it relates to the conflicting observations.

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 action ('Detect') and the resource ('contradicting observations'), distinguishing the tool's core function from the name alone. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like erinys_collide or erinys_supersede, which may also deal with observation conflicts.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no scenario examples, and no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it. The description gives no context beyond the basic function.

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