memory_find_duplicates

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it scans cross-references, optionally uses LLM for semantic comparison, and includes a rate limit (120s cooldown). It also explains the return dictionary structure. It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, but the function name suggests non-destructive behavior.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, followed by a paragraph explaining the process, then an Args section, Returns section, and a rate limit note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers parameters, return values, rate limits, and alignment with UI threshold. However, it does not compare against similar sibling tools (e.g., memory_merge, memory_detect_supersessions) to aid selection.

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, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter in an Args block: min_similarity, max_similarity, limit, use_llm, including their defaults and purpose. This provides essential meaning beyond the schema's type and default values.

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 function: 'Find potential duplicate memory pairs with optional LLM-powered comparison.' It specifies the resource (memory pairs) and the action (find duplicates), differentiating it from sibling tools like memory_merge (merging memories) and memory_detect_supersessions (detecting supersession).

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 mentions that it uses the same threshold (0.85) as the graph UI duplicate detection, which provides context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_list or memory_merge, nor does it state when not to use it.

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