find_code_duplication

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the detection is heuristic and defines the matching rule, but it omits limitations, thresholds (e.g., minimum sequence length), and whether it scans the entire project. Basic transparency, but not comprehensive.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core concept. No filler or redundancy; it earns its place with concrete details.

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 (one param, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't hint at the return value or output format (e.g., list of locations), which is a notable gap for an analysis tool with no output schema.

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 only parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema handles semantics. The description adds no additional parameter context, staying at the baseline.

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 specifies what the tool does: detects duplicated code blocks. It defines the exact heuristic criteria ('sequences of identical lines in ≥2 functions') and even labels it 'copy-paste' for clarity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_dead_code or find_long_functions.

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 implies when to use it (for copy-paste detection), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides no usage scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer.

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