kontra

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the analytical function but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., read-only, destructive), required permissions, or rate limits. The user is left to infer that it is a reasoning tool with no mutations.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's name and purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the methodology, the second instructs on usage. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the lack of output schema and sibling tools, the description covers the basic usage and purpose. However, it does not explain the return value format (e.g., text output) or offer guidance on selecting among the four modes. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps for a new user.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the statement and context parameters and lists modes, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It provides a summary of how to use parameters but no extra detail like format or constraints.

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: structured contrarian analysis to challenge decisions. It specifies the resource (decisions/plans/statements) and the action (challenge, identify blind spots), making it highly specific and distinctive even without sibling tools.

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 implies usage for analyzing decisions and optionally adding context, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (though no siblings exist). It doesn't provide 'when not to use' or scenarios, making it adequate but not explicit.

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