ima_check_repeated_names

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about return shape (e.g., which entries matched), whether the check is scoped to a folder or the entire knowledge base, whether it is read-only, or how partial/batch failures behave. Only the one-line purpose is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, appropriate for a narrow check tool. It is efficient, though terseness here borders on under-specification given the unannotated 3-parameter schema.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and a nested batch-style array (up to 2000 items), a one-sentence description is not enough to call the tool confidently. Missing are the batch semantics, folder scoping, and what a 'hit' looks like.

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 schema includes a nested params array of {name, media_type} objects plus an optional folder_id, none of which are explained. The description implies knowledge_base_id and the notion of 'name', but leaves media_type and folder_id semantics entirely undocumented for the agent.

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 ('check') plus the exact resource ('same-name entries within the IMA knowledge base') and frames it as a pre-upload step, which the sibling set lacks (siblings include ima_upload_file_to_knowledge and ima_search_knowledge). It does not explicitly contrast itself with ima_search_knowledge, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Before uploading a file' gives a clear trigger condition for when to call it. There are no exclusions and no named alternative for cases where the caller wants broader search rather than a duplicate check.

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