scan_for_contradictions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: deterministic candidate grouping, persistence, duplicate avoidance, and a summary return. However, it omits permissions requirements, performance/cost implications of a full-database scan, and any reversibility notes.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the scan action and packs in behavior without filler. It is slightly overloaded with clauses but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core mechanics but leaves gaps: the summary report's contents are unspecified and side effects/permissions are not discussed. Adequate but not 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%, so all three parameters (limit, minConfidence, includeDismissed) are already documented in the schema with defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb and resource (scans all claims, detects contradictions) and adds real scope information — whole-database rather than a single claim or source. It implicitly separates itself from scan_claim_for_contradictions and scan_source_for_contradictions via the 'all claims' scope, but never explicitly contrasts them, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named. The bulk scope is only inferable from the phrase 'all claims,' which an agent must interpret on its own.

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