List contradictions

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of explaining behavior. It reveals that the tool outputs quoted sides and a resolution question for each contradiction, giving a clear picture of return content. It does not mention side effects, but 'list' implies a read-only operation.

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, with the core functionality front-loaded in the first sentence and usage context in the second. No unnecessary detail is included, earning a top score.

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 no-parameter tool, the description provides sufficient context: it states the inputs (project sources), outputs (quoted contradictions and resolution questions), and a prioritization hint. Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers the essential return structure, making it complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage), so parameter description is unnecessary. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids fabricating parameter details.

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 defines the tool's purpose: listing contradictions from project sources, including quotes and resolution questions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_gaps and list_sources by focusing specifically on contradictions, making its role 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 statement 'This is usually the highest-value call' provides strong guidance on when to invoke this tool, suggesting it should be prioritized to surface conflicts. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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