get_conflicts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It goes beyond a simple imperative by explaining the output structure (which members are exonerated vs. suspects) and implies a read-only operation via 'List'. This provides meaningful behavioral context, though it stops short of disclosing details like ordering or pagination, which would be nice but are not critical for a simple list tool.

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, efficiently written sentence. It opens with the action ('List recorded conflicts') and follows with a clarifying clause. No redundant words or filler, making it concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context. It explains the concept of conflicts and hints at the return content. It could mention that it only lists open conflicts by default, but that is covered in the schema, so the overall package is reasonably complete.

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 already fully describes the sole parameter (open_only) with a clear description. The tool description does not add any further meaning about the parameter, so it does not need to compensate. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 tool's function ('List recorded conflicts') and provides a precise definition of what a conflict is ('sets of assumptions that cannot all hold together'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on conflicts and their outcome (exonerated vs. suspects), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_active_claims or suggest_discriminating_experiment. It does not mention any prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred, nor does it exclude cases where other tools would be more appropriate.

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