scan_source_for_contradictions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the comparison scope ('against all other claims in the database'), but says nothing about whether the scan persists/creates contradiction records, how long a scan may take, or cost/N+1 behavior. The persistence question is a real gap for a scan tool with no annotation coverage.

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 tight sentence with the action, the scoped input, and the comparison target front-loaded. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should carry more of the operational picture. It omits any indication of the return shape (e.g., ranked contradiction pairs with confidence scores) and whether the scan mutates stored state, leaving an agent guessing about results and side effects.

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 four parameters (sourceId, limit, minConfidence, includeDismissed) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as what a sourceId may be or how minConfidence affects results, 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?

States a specific verb (scans) and resource (all claims from a specific source/file/repository) plus the comparison baseline (all other claims in the database). The scope wording implicitly separates it from the sibling scan_claim_for_contradictions (single claim) and scan_for_contradictions (whole DB), though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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 scoping phrase 'from a specific source, file, or repository' implies when to reach for this over the global or single-claim scanners, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage must be inferred from the scope description alone.

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