memory_eval_contradictions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral details: it requires balanced/deep mode and returns {status: 'not_implemented', ...} if unavailable. No contradiction with annotations.

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 one sentence, but the leading 'v11.0 Phase 8:' is unnecessary metadata that does not help an agent decide to invoke the tool. The rest is reasonably concise.

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?

The description explains purpose and a failure condition, but it omits what a successful run returns, leaves fixture_path unexplained, and does not clarify mode values beyond the contradictory requirement. It is not complete enough for reliable 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 0%, and the description does not explain fixture_path. It mentions mode must be balanced/deep, which actually contradicts the schema default of 'fast', making mode semantics confusing rather than helpful.

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 runs contradiction_detector against a labelled fixture, which distinguishes it from other memory_eval_* siblings. The version/phase prefix adds some noise, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It states a prerequisite ('Requires balanced/deep mode') and a fallback behavior for missing module, but it does not explicitly explain when to choose this over the many sibling eval tools or how it fits among them.

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