find_duplicates

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

The description openly discloses a key behavioral limitation: the threshold is uncalibrated, and results are not definitive. It also mentions a 'caveat' field in the output, setting expectations about the reliability and interpretation of results. This goes beyond a basic functional statement and informs the agent of potential pitfalls, which is valuable for safe usage.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey the purpose, the return format, and critical caveats. Every phrase adds value: the core action, the output structure, the heuristic caveat, and the usage instruction. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 sibling tools include 'search_similar_issues' and 'classify_component,' the description adequately positions this tool as a duplicate finder with a cautionary note. It references the output 'caveat' field, tying the description to the expected result structure. However, it could be more complete by explicitly defining acceptable ranges for 'threshold' or 'k,' but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 schema provides no descriptions for 'text,' 'k,' or 'threshold,' so the description must compensate. It does clarify 'text' implicitly ('new issue's text') and 'k' ('k nearest issues'), but 'threshold' is only mentioned as an uncalibrated heuristic without elaborating on its value range or how it affects results. This partial explanation leaves some ambiguity, though the core parameters are understandable. A more detailed description of 'threshold' would improve the score.

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: 'Retrieve likely-duplicate candidates for a new issue's text' – a specific verb ('retrieve'), a clear resource ('duplicate candidates'), and the input scope ('new issue's text'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search_similar_issues' by emphasizing 'duplicates' rather than general similarity, providing immediate orientation for an agent.

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 offers explicit usage guidance by warning that the threshold is an 'uncalibrated heuristic' and instructing to treat flagged items as 'candidates to read, not as confirmed duplicates,' plus the directive to 'cite issue numbers when reporting them.' While it does not directly contrast with 'search_similar_issues,' the phrasing implies when this tool is appropriate (duplicate detection) versus general similarity search, which is sufficient for most agents.

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