find_contradictions

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide (readOnlyHint=true). It does not contradict annotations, but also does not disclose additional traits such as performance expectations or data requirements.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant or irrelevant information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's search nature, the description is somewhat complete. However, it lacks details about performance, edge cases, or required vault_path properties, making it merely adequate.

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 should compensate by detailing parameter meanings, but it only mentions vault_path implicitly. Parameters like limit and min_shared_concepts are not explained, though their names are somewhat self-explanatory.

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 scans the vault for note pairs with high concept overlap and conflicting claims. It uses specific verb 'scan' and identifies the resource and outcome, distinguishing it from siblings like check_pair and extract_claims.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling names hint at different use cases, the description itself lacks context about when to prefer find_contradictions over check_pair or extract_claims.

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