Detect Contradictions

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds domain-specific examples of what counts as a contradiction, which is helpful, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond that.

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, front-loaded sentence that uses all words efficiently. The parenthetical examples clarify the purpose without unnecessary verbosity.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and the kind of findings to expect. It could mention the output format, but it is not critically needed for this low-complexity tool.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'project' parameter with a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Scan' with the resource 'contradictions' and provides concrete examples ('tasks marked done but blocked, accepted contradicting decisions'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_blocked_tasks or validate_graph.

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 implies usage when checking project consistency, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The examples provide context, but no direct comparison to siblings is present.

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