find_contradictions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly discloses a key behavior: it returns only contradictions and not a full synthesis. This is useful beyond the tool name, although it does not describe edge cases like when no contradictions are found.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action first, then the output constraint, then the use case. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 simple one-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It could be more specific about the output shape or empty-result behavior, but these are minor gaps given the tool's low complexity.

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 must compensate. It does tie the single parameter topic to the search target ('on a given topic'), which is a basic but sufficient mapping. However, it does not clarify topic format, specificity, or whether exact page names versus general queries are expected.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Find self-contradictions in the wiki on a given topic.' It also clarifies the result scope — contradictions only, not a full synthesis — which helps distinguish it from tools like synthesize_topic or find_gaps.

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 gives a clear when-to-use signal: 'Useful when the user wants to reconcile evolving views.' It also implies a limitation ('no full synthesis') that steers agents away from using it for general overviews, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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