backlog_contradictions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool lists contradictions and that resolution is manual. It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state so or disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or auth needs. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate.

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 well-structured and concise, starting with the tool's purpose, then explaining the context, and finally providing resolution steps. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It defines what the tool returns, explains the underlying concept, and links to related tools for resolution. It provides sufficient context for an agent to use it effectively.

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 the description adds no parameter information (none needed). Following the baseline rule for 0 params, a score of 4 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 lists contradictions in memory, specifically sets of live memories sharing a state_key. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining the unique concept of state_key conflicts and why they should not occur.

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 tells when to use this tool (when there are memory contradictions) and suggests follow-up actions using sibling tools backlog_remember and backlog_forget. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives for non-contradiction scenarios.

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