cortex_check_contradictions

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 does not explain what 'conflicting' means, the format of results, or any side effects. For a check tool, it provides minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the basic 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. No wasted words or redundant information. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits details about what constitutes a conflict and the output format, which could be necessary for correct usage.

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 schema already describes the 'key' parameter. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining the two modes: with key (check that entry) and without key (scan recent entries). This goes beyond the schema definition.

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 finds conflicting data in the dictionary, with two distinct modes based on key presence. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'cortex_resolve_contradiction' by focusing on checking rather than resolving.

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 tells when to use the tool (to find conflicting data) and how to invoke different behaviors. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'cortex_resolve_contradiction'.

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