get_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 one non-obvious semantic rule (untagged/global beliefs count as in-scope) and implies read-only behavior via 'Find', but it never defines 'actively contradicting' (e.g. whether defeated contradictions are excluded) and says nothing about result volume, ordering, or cost.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded before the parameter caveat. The second sentence is slightly redundant with the schema's own parameter description, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 single optional-parameter query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is being looked for and how scoping works, but leaves the return shape (list of belief pairs? with what fields?) and the definition of 'active' unexplained.

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 100% and the schema already spells out the 'tagged with this project or untagged' rule and the omit-to-consider-everything behavior. The description largely restates that rule ('both beliefs visible in that project's scope'), adding only slight framing, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find all actively contradicting belief pairs'), which cleanly separates it from the write-side sibling record_contradiction and from get_belief. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or define what 'actively' excludes, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains the effect of supplying project, which implies when to narrow results, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings like query_relevant or explain_belief. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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