Open-Brain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it fails to describe any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only or mutating operation, what it returns, performance characteristics, or error conditions. The phrase 'duplicate candidate pairs' implies analysis but doesn't clarify the tool's behavior or output.

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 concise with a single phrase, but it's not front-loaded with clear purpose. It's under-specified rather than efficiently informative, as it lacks essential details about the tool's function. While brief, it doesn't earn its place by providing actionable information.

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 complexity implied by terms like 'similarity zone histogram' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how it behaves, or what it returns, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively in context with sibling tools.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't introduce any confusion about inputs. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it avoids misleading parameter information.

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 'Duplicate candidate pairs with similarity zone histogram' is vague and lacks a clear verb-action statement. It mentions 'duplicate candidate pairs' and 'similarity zone histogram' but doesn't specify what the tool actually does with them (e.g., identifies, analyzes, filters, or visualizes). It restates the tool name 'dedup_review' in different words rather than explaining its function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools like 'review_stale' or 'weekly_review' that might be related. This leaves the agent with no information to make an informed choice.

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