hebbrix_contradictions

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying scoping behavior (one memory vs. full scan) and an example of what constitutes a contradiction. 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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with purpose and usage. No redundant phrases or filler. Every clause contributes meaning.

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 output schema exists, return details are not needed. The description covers the main functionality and usage modes, but misses explaining the second parameter (collection_id). Slight gap but overall sufficient for a read-only 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'memory_id' as an optional filter, but 'collection_id' is not mentioned at all, leaving its role ambiguous. This partial clarification earns a 3.

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 verb 'surface' and resource 'contradicting facts in the knowledge graph' with a concrete example ('two different values for the same attribute'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like heaprix_confidence or heaprix_ask.

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?

Provides explicit contextual guidance: 'Use before trusting a fact that feels ambiguous.' Also explains the two usage modes (pass a memory_id or omit to scan), which is a clear condition for invocation. Though no alternatives are named, the situational cue is strong.

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