duplicate_candidates

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

The '(read-only)' annotation in the text is a useful behavioral disclosure given no annotations are present. However, it does not mention recursion behavior, resource-intensive hashing, or any caveats about limits, leaving much of the behavior unspecified.

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 sentence with no redundant words, making it highly concise. However, it is so brief that it under-specifies, as conciseness should not come at the expense of necessary detail.

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?

For a tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It provides only a high-level definition and omits usage context, parameter semantics, and expected return behavior, making it incomplete for effective use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the meaning of all six parameters (rootPath, limit, maxDepth, etc.) is left entirely to the schema property names. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 conveys that the tool identifies groups of files that share identical size and content hash, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like stale_candidates. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'Finds' or 'Returns'), reducing specificity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions that would favor duplicate_candidates over other sibling tools.

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