contradiction.conflicts.get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only operation' aligns with these. It adds value by describing the full contents of the returned record, including the chronological audit trail, which clarifies the includeAuditHistory parameter's effect. No contradictions with annotations.

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 one dense, focused sentence plus the phrase 'Read-only operation.' Every element earns its place: the resource, the ID-based access, the key payload components, and the safety indicator. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 description covers all essential aspects for a read-only getter: what the resource is, how it is accessed, and what the response includes. An output schema exists, so return-value structure is captured elsewhere. It lacks explicit routing to sibling tools, but for a simple retrieval operation with strong annotations and parameter documentation, it is adequately 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: contradictionId and includeAuditHistory are both clearly documented in the schema. The description's mention of the audit trail echoes the parameter but does not add new syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a precise resource ('a single contradiction record by ID'), and enumerates exactly what is included: both claims, source metadata, line evidence snippets, and the audit trail. This distinguishing detail separates it from list/scan siblings, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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 conveys that the tool is for fetching a single record once an ID is known, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over conflicts.list (e.g., for browsing) or conflicts.resolve (for mutations), nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than articulated.

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