contradictions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait — dangling edges are excluded from the result set — but says nothing about deduplication, ordering, directionality of the pairs, or result size limits, which matter for a graph query.

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 sentence with a clarifying parenthetical, front-loading the return shape first. There is no filler, though the phrasing is terse enough that the implicit 'list/query' verb is left to inference.

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 no-argument read query with an output schema present, the description tells the agent what set is returned and how it differs from the nearest sibling. The return-value details are carried by the output schema, so little more is required.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly focuses on the return shape rather than inventing argument semantics.

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 the exact resource returned: '{a, b} node pairs linked by a `contradicts` edge'. The verb is only implied (a read/list), but the resource is specific and the parenthetical explicitly distinguishes this tool from the dangling_edges sibling, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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 gives an explicit exclusion and points to the alternative: a dangling contradicts edge is 'surfaced by dangling_edges() instead, not here.' That is a clear when-not plus a named alternative, though it never states the positive when-to-use condition for querying contradictions.

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