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 of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool detects duplicates (implying a read-only operation) and specifies detection criteria (similar titles or linked files), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify anything, nor describe the output structure or any side effects. The description does not contradict annotations (there are none) but falls short of full transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action ('Detect'), resource ('duplicate/overlapping memories'), criteria, and purpose. There is no fluff or redundant detail; every word earns its place. It is both concise and well-structured for quick agent comprehension.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return format), the description is adequately complete for calling the tool. It explains what the tool does, how it identifies duplicates, and why it is used. The only missing element is an explicit statement about the output structure, but that is handled by the output schema. Overall, an agent has sufficient context to use this tool correctly.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none to explain. No further information is required in the description for this dimension.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Detect duplicate/overlapping memories' with clear detection criteria ('similar titles or same linked files'). It also conveys the purpose ('so they can be consolidated'), making the tool's intent unambiguous. Among sibling tools like search_memory or recall, this is clearly distinct as it targets duplicates for consolidation, not general retrieval.

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?

Usage is implied through the purpose ('so they can be consolidated') – an agent understands this tool is for finding duplicates prior to consolidation. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs search_memory) nor provides any exclusions. It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, so it falls into the 'implied usage' category.

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