Memory conflicts

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms no LLM involvement. It explains the scoring heuristics (NLI or same-slot heuristic). No mention of side effects or destructive actions, which aligns with read-only. The description adds context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 paragraph with multiple sentences, each adding value. It is fairly concise but could be more structured with bullet points or separate sections for parameters. Still, it avoids verbosity.

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 tool has no output schema, so return format is undocumented. Parameters are not explained. The description covers purpose, scoring, and post-action advice, but the missing parameter documentation and output format make it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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%, meaning parameters have no documentation. The description does not mention 'limit' or 'namespace', so it adds no meaning beyond parameter names. Given low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to explain what these parameters control.

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 defines the tool's purpose: returning contradictory beliefs from shared memory. It specifies the multi-agent failure mode, scoring methods (NLI or heuristic), and distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on conflicts. The verb is implicit but the action is clear.

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 advises to verify with the user and then use 'forget' or capture the corrected value, which guides post-use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'audit_use' or 'check_memory_use', though the context makes it inferable.

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