hebbrix_contradictions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully explains the scanning behavior and optional memory_id, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only/no-side-effect operation, nor does it cover behavior related to collection_id or potential limits. It is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a usage example and a contextual trigger. Every sentence earns its place with no filler 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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema and presence of an output schema, the description conveys the core purpose and main usage pattern. However, the omission of collection_id leaves a notable gap in understanding the full scanning/filtering scope. It is serviceable 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to memory_id ('check one memory, or omit to scan'), but collection_id is completely ignored, leaving a required dimension of the tool's filtering behavior unexplained. The compensation is only partial.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource ('Surface contradicting facts in the knowledge graph') and gives a concrete example. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like hebbrix_search or hebbrix_get, which retrieve facts rather than check for contradictions.

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?

It provides clear usage direction: 'Use before trusting a fact that feels ambiguous' and explains the memory_id behavior ('Pass... or omit to scan'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives, so it misses the top score but is still well-guided.

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