evidence_conflicts

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by mentioning 'surfacing' (retrieval) and 'suggested cross-check actions' (actionable output), beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key concept. However, the jargon 'Reef 10 conflict view' may reduce accessibility. Still, it is efficient with no wasted words.

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 6 parameters with no descriptions and an output schema, the description fails to explain parameter roles or output structure. It lacks sufficient detail for an AI agent to use the tool correctly without extra inference.

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%, so the description must compensate but does not mention any parameters by name or purpose. The meaning of projectId, projectRef, filePath, etc. is left entirely to the schema names and constraints.

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 surfaces stale evidence, conflict facts, and contradictory findings, with cross-check actions. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from similar siblings like evidence_confidence.

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?

The description implies use for viewing conflicts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide exclusionary conditions or prerequisites.

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