interference_analysis

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions returning conflict and confidence but omits whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, prerequisites, or performance implications.

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 sentence that front-loads the action. It is concise, though could benefit from more detail without becoming verbose.

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 simple structure (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the return type (conflict and confidence) and basic purpose. However, it lacks context on whether the tool modifies state or behavior under different conditions.

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 has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'new_fact'. The description adds basic meaning by calling it a 'new fact' to check, but fails to specify format constraints or what constitutes a valid fact, leaving ambiguity.

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 verb 'check' and the resource 'collision between fact and belief', and distinguishes from siblings that focus on consolidation, recall, and storage. However, it lacks specificity on what 'collision' means and the exact output format, given no output schema.

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 use for conflict detection, and sibling names suggest alternatives (e.g., recall_by_association for retrieval), but no explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool is provided.

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