find_duplicates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral convention: files within each group are ordered such that the first is the 'original' kept by downstream steps. However, it leaves other behavior (ordering of groups, how identity is determined, whether it recurses) unstated.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the key grouping convention is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably undersized given how much is left unspecified.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a tool with an undocumented required parameter and no usage guidance, the description is too thin. It omits the scan scope, recursion behavior, and how it fits with plan_tidy/apply_plan.

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 0% and the single required parameter 'path' is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not say what the path points to (root folder to scan?), whether it recurses, or what format it takes, so it fails to 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 names the resource (groups of identical files) but uses a noun phrase with no verb, so the action is only inferable from the tool name. It does add one meaningful semantic detail (the first file in each group is treated as the original), which distinguishes it somewhat, but there is no differentiation from siblings like scan_folder or plan_tidy.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus scan_folder, plan_tidy, or apply_plan, and no statement of prerequisites or typical workflow position. The agent must guess that this is a read step feeding into plan_tidy.

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