gns3_duplicate_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether duplication requires specific permissions, if the original project remains unchanged, whether the new project is automatically opened, potential performance impacts for large projects, or error conditions (e.g., duplicate name conflicts).

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that directly communicate the core functionality. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second clarifies the scope of duplication. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (duplication operation with 6 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides minimal but functional context. It explains what the tool does at a high level but lacks crucial details about parameters, behavioral constraints, and usage scenarios that would make it complete.

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 for all 6 parameters, the description provides no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It mentions 'new name' but doesn't explain project_id format, server_url conventions, authentication requirements (username/password), or path parameter purpose. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('duplicate', 'creates exact copy') and resources ('existing project', 'all nodes and configurations'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gns3_create_project (which creates new projects) and gns3_duplicate_node (which duplicates individual nodes).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), compare with gns3_create_project for new projects, or specify use cases like creating project templates or backups.

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