list_conflicts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'deterministic' and 'No model finds them' (indicating it is rule-based). It also clarifies that the result is a list of candidates for the user to adjudicate, not a resolved answer. It mentions the significance of 'valid-time' tags to help interpretation. It does not mention performance, error behavior, or limitations, but for a listing tool 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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second explains the adjudication responsibility, and the third gives usage guidance and tag interpretation. It is compact with no unnecessary filler, earning a strong score though not perfect conciseness.

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 moderate complexity (2 optional boolean parameters) and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, expected output (candidates), interpretation guidance, and a use case. It does not specify the exact output format, but with a list tool that is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to use it, even without annotations.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the two boolean parameters (all_keys and include_inline). The tool description adds no additional explanation of these parameters, and the baseline is 3 when the schema fully documents them. The description does not enhance understanding of the parameters' impact on results beyond what the schema already states.

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 starts with a clear verb and object: 'list contradiction CANDIDATES' and defines the resource precisely as 'notes that assert different values for the same (subject, predicate)'. This differentiates it from siblings like list_duplicates (which likely finds similar notes) and recall (which retrieves facts).

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 an explicit usage context: 'Use before trusting a possibly-stale fact recalled from memory.' It also explains how to interpret results ('decide if it is a real contradiction and which note is current') and provides guidance on the valid-time tags ('disjoint' vs 'overlapping'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the use case alone is quite specific.

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