detect_heuristic_conflicts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains what types of conflicts are detected and mentions negation prefixes. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (non-destructive) or describe any side effects, computational costs, or limits. The version number is extra but not essential.

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?

Two sentences: first states version and general purpose, second adds specifics. Every phrase earns its place. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

No output schema, and the description does not specify the return format or structure (e.g., list of conflicts, summary statistics, or nothing if none found). For a detection tool, output details are important for downstream use. Otherwise, it covers the detection logic adequately.

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?

No parameters exist (schema is empty with 100% coverage). The description adds no parameter info but none is needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and this exceeds by being clear about the tool's stateless input requirements.

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?

Clearly states it detects pair-wise overlap and contradiction across stored heuristics, with specific definitions (same condition tokens + different actions for overlap; opposing actions on overlapping conditions with negation prefixes for contradiction). Distinguishes from siblings like 'detect_contradictions' by targeting heuristics specifically.

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?

Does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'detect_contradictions' or 'match_heuristics'. Usage is implied (when checking heuristic consistency), but no guidance on when not to use it or what prerequisites exist.

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