velixar_contradictions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the resolve action (which modifies data) and the output structure, but does not mention whether changes are reversible, required permissions, or any side effects. Transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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-loaded with the main action ('Surface conflicting...'), and every sentence adds value. No redundant or unnecessary phrases.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains return values (pairs with severity and memory IDs). However, it does not specify default behavior (e.g., default action is 'list'?), nor does it emphasize that contradiction_id is required for resolve. Given 6 parameters and moderate complexity, the description is sufficient but not fully comprehensive.

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?

All 6 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the return format (severity and memory IDs) and that resolve action marks as resolved, which aids interpretation beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Surface conflicting beliefs, preferences, or facts.' It also mentions the resolve action and the return format (pairs with severity and memory IDs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which handle contradictions.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when-not-to-use. While the name and purpose imply it's for contradictions, no usage context or exclusions are given.

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