detect_duplicates

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

No annotations provided; the description fails to disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, performance impact, side effects). It only states the purpose without additional context about behavior beyond the basic function.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It avoids verbosity, though it sacrifices some context for brevity.

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 presence of multiple sibling detection tools and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the 'mode' enum values (same_source, overlapping_ranges, identical) or detail the output format, leaving the agent without sufficient context for correct 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 100% with descriptions for both 'filepath' and 'mode'. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, meeting the baseline for adequate schema documentation.

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 'Find clips using the same source media (potential duplicates)', providing a specific verb ('find') and resource ('clips'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like detect_gaps or detect_silence_candidates by focusing on duplicate detection.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as detect_gaps or detect_flash_frames. The description lacks context about prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparison with other detection modes.

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