find_duplicate_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the return-shape detail (notably results_truncated and assets_scanned), which hints at scan behavior but does not address performance, large-tree cost, or scan scope limits beyond what annotations provide.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and free of waste. The trailing 'Returns' block is dense but every field listed is informative given there is no output schema; the '(groups sorted by count descending)' note earns its place. Slightly verbose for a single-sentence tool, but structured well.

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?

With no output schema, describing the return object (group_count, total_duplicate_assets, assets_scanned, results_truncated, nested groups) is genuinely load-bearing and compensates for the missing schema. Coverage of parameters is complete via the schema, so nothing essential is missing, though the absence of any alternative-tool guidance is a minor gap.

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 100%, so every parameter (recursive, folder_path, max_results, class_filter, min_group_size) is already documented in the schema. The description merely echoes these field names in its return block without adding syntax, defaults, or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource with a scoping constraint: 'Find groups of assets sharing the same base name under a folder tree.' The parenthetical example (vendored library vs first-party fork) makes the intent unmistakable and separates it from adjacent asset-audit tools like find_unused_assets or get_assets_by_name.

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 vendored-library-vs-fork example implies the use case (asset audit / dedup) but there is no explicit when-to-use framing and no named alternative such as audit_fork_refs or find_unused_assets. Usage is inferable from the example rather than stated.

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