resolve_precedence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ranking rule but not whether the tool mutates state, requires permissions, what happens to losing claims, or any side effects of 'resolving' a conflict.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its terseness is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than genuine density.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a resolution tool the description omits what 'resolving' produces for the input candidates, how ties outside the ladder are handled, and any operational constraints.

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% for the single 'candidates' parameter, an array of untyped objects. The description never mentions candidates or the shape each candidate must take, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap beyond the loose mapping to 'conflicting claims'.

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 gives a verb ('Resolve') and a resource ('conflicting claims'), and the precedence ladder hints at the decision logic. However, the terms 'Reality', 'CURRENT law', and 'cutover' are opaque without domain context, and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like classify_claim or validate_evidence.

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 precedence order implies how conflicts are ranked but says nothing about when an agent should call this tool versus validate_evidence or check_replay_safety, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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