List open contradiction suggestions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states 'Nothing has been written yet', making clear this is a non-mutating listing operation, and it describes the state of the items being listed as open, unactioned candidates.

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 compact: it front-loads the core operation, then adds source, safety, and alternative routing in a single efficient sentence. Every clause 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 list operation with a fully documented two-parameter schema, the description covers what is listed, how the candidates arise, that no write occurs, and where to go next. There is no critical missing context an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 provides 100% parameter documentation: projectRoot as absolute path and limit with default/ordering semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('open contradiction verdicts for a NexusMem-tracked repository'), and clarifies that these are candidates flagged by a known command or by sync. It explicitly distinguishes itself from resolve_stale_suggestion by stating that no action has been taken yet.

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?

It gives clear context for when this tool is relevant: open contradiction candidates from 'nexusmem stale --check-contradictions' or automatic sync. It also directs acting on a suggestion to resolve_stale_suggestion, but it does not spell out when not to use the tool versus other sibling list/search tools.

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