Erinys Conflict Check

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether the check is read-only, whether it flags or resolves conflicts, how far it searches for contradictions, or whether it costs anything — all material for a tool an agent may call speculatively.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded, with no filler — but the brevity here is under-specification rather than economy. It reads as a fragment of a definition rather than a complete one.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but everything else is missing: no annotations, no parameter documentation, no scope of the comparison. For a tool in a dense 28-sibling namespace, that is not enough to call it correctly.

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 parameter observation_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it. It is left unstated whether the id names the observation being checked or the one being checked against, which is the crux of interpreting the result.

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?

States a verb ('detect') and a resource ('contradicting observations'), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it never says what the check is run against — one observation versus the whole store, or a pair — leaving the actual operation ambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to invoke this versus siblings that clearly overlap in the same memory-hygiene space, such as erinys_collide, erinys_supersede, or erinys_eval. The agent gets no trigger condition and no exclusions.

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