contradiction.sources.test

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explicitly stating it 'does not persist any data or modify state' and that it validates connectivity, authentication, and accessibility. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the non-mutating nature in operational terms. It doesn't describe error behavior or return format, but the output schema exists and the annotations carry the safety burden, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Validates connectivity, authentication, and accessibility'), followed by the key non-mutating constraint and a clear usage directive. Every sentence 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 validation tool with 3 parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it does not do. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe what happens on failure (e.g., error codes or return structure), but the output schema likely covers return values, and the annotations cover safety. A 4 is appropriate given the strong context signals.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (connector, target, branch) with descriptions and enums. The description adds context about what the parameters mean in practice (e.g., 'owner/repo' for GitHub, URL for website, file path for document) but this largely mirrors the schema. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('validates') and resource ('external data source or connector'), and explicitly names example targets (GitHub repository, web URL, local file). It also distinguishes itself from synchronization by noting it does not persist data or modify state, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like contradiction.sources.sync.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use this tool to verify credentials and target reachability prior to running synchronization.' This provides clear context and implies the alternative (synchronization) without needing to name a specific sibling. It also states what it does not do (no persisting data or modifying state), which helps an agent decide between this and mutation-oriented siblings.

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