List Memory Conflicts

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'conflicting/inconsistent', such as the default focus on unresolved conflicts. It does not contradict annotations, but adds limited additional transparency about response behavior or side effects.

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 two sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does, and the second gives the usage trigger. No wasted words.

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 read-only list tool, the description is sufficiently complete. The output schema exists, annotations cover safety, and all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds the necessary context for when to use the tool, making it fully functional for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 100%, with each parameter (limit, output_json, unresolved_only) having clear descriptions. The description's phrase 'review unresolved conflicts' aligns with the unresolved_only parameter but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 conflicting/inconsistent memories.' The verb 'List' and the specific resource 'conflicting/inconsistent memories' make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'resolve_memory_conflict' which handles resolution rather than listing.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Call this when the user/admin asks to review unresolved conflicts.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions. It offers strong contextual direction for a common use case.

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