trusted_memory_conflicts

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'unresolved authorized' adds a small amount of scoping context. However, it does not explain how authorization is determined, how limit/query affect behavior, or whether there are any side effects beyond reading.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and object appear immediately. It is concise, but it may be too terse given the number of parameters and lack of usage context, so it does not earn a 5.

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 tool with eight parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, result shape, filtering behavior, and any guidance on how authorization or tenant/project scoping impacts the list.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for eight parameters, but it explains none of them. An agent cannot infer how limit, query, clearance, tenant_id, project_id, groups_json, principal_id, or projects_json affect the results.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('unresolved authorized Trusted Memory conflicts'), making the core operation clear. It is distinguishable from propose/review/recall siblings by its scoping to unresolved conflicts, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate a sibling.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like trusted_memory_review, trusted_memory_recall, or trusted_memory_inbox. There are no exclusions, conditions, or example scenarios to help an agent choose this tool.

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