Scan live contradiction candidates

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

The description disclosed that the tool never writes, even after elicitation or confirmation, which directly reinforces the readOnlyHint annotation and adds important context about the confirm mode's behavior. It also explains that scan mode returns deterministic candidates and read-only proposal tokens, and clarifies the difference between summary and full detail. These details go beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, front-loads the usage condition, and packs essential information about modes, detail levels, and safety without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers the tool's core behavior, modes, and read-only guarantee. Since an output schema exists, return values are not the description's responsibility. However, it could be slightly more complete by explicitly tying proposal_token to confirm mode, but this is a minor gap. Overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does. It explains the 'mode' parameter (scan vs confirm), the 'detail' parameter (summary vs full), and implies the 'proposal_token' parameter through 'confirm mode validates one token.' However, it does not explicitly name the proposal_token parameter or state that it is required for confirm mode, leaving some inference to the reader.

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 scans for contradiction candidates between indexed sections that may conflict or refine each other. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing its specific analytical purpose and the two modes (scan/confirm). The verb 'scan' and explicit resource 'contradiction candidates' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when indexed sections may conflict or refine one another.' It distinguishes between scan and confirm modes and explains when each is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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