jio_find_duplicates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the grouping logic (checksum else name+size) and that it works across categories, but it omits essential behavioral information such as whether the operation is read-only, what the return format looks like, or any side effects. The mention of 'custom list' is also unsupported by the schema, adding confusion.

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 short and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence and grouping detail in the second. It is efficient overall, but the phrase 'or a custom list' introduces ambiguity and could have been omitted or clarified, slightly reducing its polish.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is insufficient. It lacks return value details, explanations of key parameters, and any edge-case or behavioral context. An agent would likely struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional information.

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%, and the description offers minimal parameter clarification. It partially lists categories (photos/videos/documents) but gives no explanation of policy, maxPages, dateWindowMs, or how to provide a 'custom list' that the description claims. The parameter semantics remain largely opaque.

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 finds duplicate files and groups them by checksum or name+size, which is specific and informative. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like jio_duplicate_report or jio_delete_duplicates, so it loses a point.

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 this tool is for finding duplicate files among specified categories, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention any alternative tools. The usage context is only implied, not clearly stated.

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