clarik_conflict_resolver

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

The description says it 'shows both sides for user decision' but does not explain what happens after the decision (e.g., memory updates, side effects). With no annotations, the description carries full burden and fails to disclose key behavioral traits like state mutation or required permissions.

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 very short but lacks essential information such as usage context and parameter details. It is under-specified for the tool's complexity, trading conciseness for completeness.

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 the tool's potential for state modification and the absence of an output schema, the description should explain return values and side effects. It does not, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 100% with the 'projectPath' parameter already described in the schema. The description does not add any meaning to this parameter or explain its role in conflict resolution, so 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 clearly states the tool's verb 'surface and resolve' and resource 'conflicting memories'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clarik_memory_recall or clarik_hallucination_detector, which focus on retrieval or detection rather than conflict resolution.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existence of conflicting memories), typical scenarios, or when not to use it.

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