conflict_advice

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 scores both sides and may ask the user for clarification, implying it is non-destructive, but it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, what side effects might occur, or what the output looks like. It adds useful context about the decision criteria, but not a complete behavioral picture.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and lists the scoring criteria. Every word contributes, with no redundant or vague content, making it appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 description covers the core behavior but omits the return format, how the optional 'limit' parameter behaves, and whether the tool has any side effects. Since there is no output schema, the description should have revealed what the agent can expect in the response, but it does not. For a simple advisory tool, this is a moderate gap.

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 one optional integer parameter 'limit', but the description does not mention it, and schema description coverage is 0%. The parameter's meaning can only be guessed from its name, and the description does not compensate by explaining how limit affects the scoring or recommendation behavior.

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 specifies the tool's function: for each memory conflict, score both sides using evidence, confidence, recency, and source trust, then recommend which to keep or ask the user to clarify. It uses specific verbs ('score', 'recommend') and a clear resource ('memory conflict'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resolve_conflicts by focusing on advice rather than execution.

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 the tool is used when there is a memory conflict and you need a recommendation, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like resolve_conflicts or list_conflicts. No exclusions or alternative names are mentioned, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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