find_duplicate_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly signals a read-only local operation and reassures about privacy ('never uploads user data anywhere'), but says nothing about whether duplicates are removed, returned, or flagged, nor about output format. That is a meaningful gap for an analysis tool.

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, zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the locality note. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 3-param tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description leaves unclear what the tool returns (a list of duplicate rows? a count?) and how the delimiter default behaves. The local-only note is useful but not sufficient to make the tool fully callable without inference.

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 33%, so the description is expected to compensate. It adds meaning for keyColumns ('one or more key columns') matching the minItems constraint, but filePath and delimiter remain undocumented beyond the schema types. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (duplicate rows) qualified by key columns, which is distinct from sibling tools like validate_csv or schema_check. It lacks any explicit differentiation from those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives among the CSV manipulation siblings. The only contextual hint is 'Local files only,' which is a constraint rather than usage routing.

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