Find Contradictions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly declares 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait, and specifies the return fields. However, it omits details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior when no contradictions exist, though these are less critical for a read-only query.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states the main action, and the second concisely adds parameter details and output format. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 query tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: action, scope options, return fields, and behavioral constraint (read-only). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% (1 parameter with enum and description). The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the return format ({from_slug, to_slug, confidence, surfaced_at, source_run_id}) and reinforcing the read-only nature, which helps the agent understand the output.

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 action ('Traverse the typed reasoning graph') and the resource ('active contradicts edges'). It also distinguishes itself by noting it is 'the sharpest of six relation types,' and sibling tools like search_concepts and get_article have different purposes.

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 explains the scope parameter options and the return format, implying when to use the tool (e.g., for accessing all or recent contradictions). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from siblings in terms of use cases, leaving some ambiguity.

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