Identify contradictory facts in a knowledge graph by comparing similarity and status differences to expose inconsistencies.
Find pairs of facts that contradict each other based on similarity and status differences
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It doesn't state whether the tool is read-only, what the output looks like, or any side effects. The hint about 'similarity and status differences' is the only behavioral clue, but it's insufficient.
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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It's not bloated, but it's under-specified. The brevity doesn't earn its place because it lacks critical 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?
The tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides no information about return values, parameter usage, or behavioral context. It is far from complete even for a simple tool.
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 input schema has two parameters (limit, query) with zero descriptions, and the description doesn't mention them at all. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent with no understanding of what these parameters do.
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 clearly states the tool finds pairs of contradicting facts, using a specific verb ('Find') and resource. It adds a hint of the method ('similarity and status differences'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like resolve_contradiction, though the distinction is evident from the name.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the vague description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.