find_shared_behaviors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return order, fields like hash and effects, and empty result interpretation. It does not mention cost or limitations, but for a read-only tool, it is fairly transparent.

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 well-structured with bullet points for output fields, and front-loaded with purpose. While slightly long, every sentence adds value.

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?

Tool has two optional parameters and no output schema, but the description explains the output structure in detail (cluster fields like hash, effects, features). This compensates well for lack of output schema.

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% (both parameters described in schema). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 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 it lists clusters of FEATUREs with identical behavior (forward-slice hash). It uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'clusters of FEATUREs', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'find_calls' by focusing on cross-modality duplication.

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 usage for detecting duplication (e.g., CLI commands wrapping same library as HTTP endpoints) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No direct comparisons or exclusions are provided.

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