memory_contradiccion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: the method (embedding cosine distance + negation heuristics) and that the tool is read-only. However, it says nothing about runtime cost, scope limits, or the shape of results.

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?

Three tight fragments, zero padding, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the implementation note and the read-only flag. Every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description would ideally sketch what a scan returns (contradiction pairs, confidence, etc.), and it does not. For a simple two-parameter read-only scan it is minimally adequate but leaves the result shape opaque.

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%, and the schema already explains both `action` and the omit-to-scan-top-entities behavior of `entity_name`. The description adds no syntactic or semantic detail beyond that, 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 and resource: 'Detect semantic contradictions between observations of the same entity.' The bracketed alias note (['alias of cuba_contradiccion']) also distinguishes it from the sibling cuba_contradiccion, so the agent knows the two are functionally the same.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer you call it when you want contradictions found, and the alias note hints it is interchangeable with cuba_contradiccion. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement.

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