find_duplicate_candidates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does add one genuinely useful trait — 'without changing Plane' signals a non-mutating read — but says nothing about how similarity is scored, how ties/ordering work, or the search scope (workspace vs project).

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the identifying information (duplicate detection + read-only) is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for four undocumented parameters rather than padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and all-optional params with meaningful defaults, the description leaves too much unresolved for correct invocation.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. Only 'title' is obliquely implied by 'by title similarity'; min_score, project_id (null default meaning), and max_results remain undocumented in both places.

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?

Specific verb+resource+mechanism: 'Find potentially duplicate Plane work items by title similarity', with the non-mutating property stated. It is clearly distinct from list_work_items / find_work_items / audit_work_items, though it never names those siblings as alternatives.

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 exclusions, no prerequisites. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this should be run before audit_work_items or get_standardization_plan, or whether a project must be active first.

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