list_conflicts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the read-only action ('Return') and defines conflict criteria, making the behavior unambiguous. However, it does not clarify 'active' or describe the output format, which would be additional useful context.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and criteria, while the second states the intended use. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple, parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is returned, the definition of conflict, and a clear use case. It could mention related tools, but this is not necessary for a straightforward read operation.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because there are none, but the schema itself is trivially understood.

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 opens with 'Return active memory conflicts' – a specific verb and resource – followed by precise criteria ('same cue, both confident, different content'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like conflict_advice and resolve_conflicts, which serve different purposes.

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 usage context: 'Agents can use this to spot contradictions before answering.' It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context makes the intended use case clear, aligning with the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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