Retrieve conflict IDs from the local world to identify existing conflicts before creating proposals subject to evidence and constitution rules.
Read conflict IDs in the local world. Evidence and constitution rules apply to any future proposal that creates conflict objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Read conflict IDs' clearly signals a non-mutating operation, and the note about future proposals reinforces that this tool does not create conflict objects. It does not specify output format or 'local world' semantics, but for a zero-parameter read the core behavior is 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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded. The second sentence adds domain context about proposals and rules, but it is tangential to executing the read and could confuse the agent about whether this tool is related to proposal creation. It is still short, so not severely overbuilt.
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?
The tool is low-complexity (no parameters), so a brief description can be adequate. However, 'local world' is undefined, no output schema exists to document the return shape, and the relationship to the sibling tools is not clarified. The description is minimally sufficient but leaves the agent to infer important context.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters for the description to clarify, and no mismatch exists between the schema and prose.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read conflict IDs in the local world.' This makes the operation clear and separates it from mutation-oriented siblings like commons_propose and commons_resolutions, though it does not explicitly contrast with query/get siblings.
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 direct guidance on when to choose commons_conflicts over the sibling tools. The second sentence mentions future proposals and rule applicability, but never states 'use commons_propose to create conflicts' or 'use this to inspect existing conflicts only.' The intended invocation context is left largely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.