list_conflicts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: returns up to 20 conflicts, includes both memory contents, and is scoped to open conflicts by default. It does not mention side effects or auth, but as a read-only listing tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause provides useful information (definition, use case, return limit, contents). No redundancy or 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool without annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, why to use it, and what it returns. It briefly misses explaining the full range of statuses available via the schema, but this is a minor gap given the schema already enumerates them.

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 adds no meaning to the 'status' parameter beyond echoing 'open' as the default. It does not explain other enum values (accept_a, accept_b, dismissed) or how filtering works, leaving the parameter semantics to the schema alone.

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 lists conflict flags and defines what constitutes a conflict (two sources reporting different values for the same fact at the same event_time). This specific verb+resource+definition distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall or memory_lineage, which serve different memory-related purposes.

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?

Provides explicit context for when to use: 'Use this to surface data quality issues before they affect decisions.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear and distinct from siblings, making the intended use evident.

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