wisdom_find_contradictions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'searching for CONTRADICTS relations' usefully indicates this is a read-style lookup over existing relation data rather than a mutation. It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or describe what happens when nothing is found, but the language strongly implies a non-mutating search.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the target, and the mechanism in a compact way, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter lookup tool, the description is mostly adequate: it names the operation, the resource, and the relation type. However, there is no output schema and the description does not state the return format, such as whether it returns matching relations, fragments, or some other structure. That leaves a moderate gap.

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 only parameter, fragment_id, is already clearly documented as the UUID of the fragment to find contradictions for. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Find potential contradictions to a fragment' and further distinguishes the tool by stating it searches for 'CONTRADICTS relations'. This clearly separates it from general relation tools like wisdom_get_relations and other fragment operations.

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 description implies the tool should be used when an agent needs contradictions for a specific fragment, and the single required fragment_id reinforces that. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as wisdom_get_relations for retrieving all relation types.

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