contradictions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral aspects like trust-weighting and local logic, but does not specify read-only nature, side effects, or permission needs. The mention of 'scan' suggests non-destructive behavior but is not explicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with key purpose, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

No output schema is present, and the description does not clarify return format (e.g., structure of contradiction pairs). While sufficient for a basic understanding, an agent might need more context on output details for effective invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds the concept of 'trust-weighted contradiction pairs', which is not in schema, but does not elaborate on parameter specifics beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 inspects memory disagreements by scanning topics or recent memories for contradiction pairs, using a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('memory disagreements'). It distinguishes itself by referencing the sibling tool deep_reference, indicating a focused purpose.

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 for contradiction detection but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like deep_reference or cross_reference. No when-not or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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