check_pair

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating no destructive behavior. The description adds 'full contradiction check' but does not elaborate on behaviors such as computational intensity or dependencies. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides limited additional transparency.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence states purpose, the second adds critical input format. Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (2 simple string params) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the functionality. It mentions vault inference, which is essential for context. Minor omission: no hint about what the check returns, but the output schema likely handles that.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fills the gap by clarifying that parameters accept 'absolute paths or filename stems', adding meaning beyond the parameter names and string types in the schema. It applies to both parameters and is directly useful.

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 specifies the action ('Run the full contradiction check') and the resource ('between two specific notes'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like find_contradictions which likely operates more broadly. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 provides input format guidance ('absolute paths or filename stems within a vault that can be inferred'), which implies usage context, but it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions relative to siblings like extract_claims or generate_reconciliation_prompt.

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