backlog_contradictions

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It accurately conveys that the tool lists contradictions non-destructively and that resolution is manual. It also clarifies the difference between structural contradictions and semantic collision candidates. While read-only nature is implied, an explicit statement would improve transparency.

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 thorough but somewhat verbose, packing significant procedural detail into a single paragraph. While every sentence adds value, it could be more concise by separating the resolution workflow into a bulleted list or shorter statements.

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 complexity (two modes, resolution workflow, and no output schema), the description covers the essential concepts: what contradictions are, how to use the tool, and next steps. It mentions reading members via backlog_get for context. Lacking only an explicit statement about the output format (e.g., list of memory IDs).

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds value by explaining the conceptual difference between 'candidates' and contradictions, beyond the schema's 'semantic collision candidates'. This contextual enrichment aids an agent in selecting the appropriate mode.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: listing structural contradictions in memory, specifically sets of ≥2 LIVE memories sharing a state_key. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like backlog_remember and backlog_forget by detailing the resolution workflow using these tools, making its unique role evident.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (to find and resolve structural contradictions) and how to proceed after using it (via backlog_remember or backlog_forget). It also explains the 'candidates' parameter for semantic collision candidates. However, it does not contrast directly with other list-like siblings such as backlog_search.

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