find_contradictions

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or what the output format is. The description only mentions the detection criteria without safety or side-effect context.

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 of 13 words, very concise with no redundant information. However, the brevity sacrifices necessary details, making it less helpful than a slightly longer but more informative description.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented parameters, the description lacks essential details about how contradictions are identified, what the output contains, and how parameters work. It is incomplete for reliable tool invocation.

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 bears full responsibility. It does not explain how 'query' and 'limit' parameters affect the contradiction search. The agent cannot determine valid inputs or behavior.

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 contradictory fact pairs using similarity and status differences. The verb 'Find' and resource 'pairs of facts that contradict each other' are specific, though the source of facts (e.g., a database) is not specified. It distinguishes from siblings like 'resolve_contradiction' in purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query_fact' for general fact retrieval or 'resolve_contradiction' for resolving contradictions. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name and siblings.

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