list_duplicates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the responsibility for behavioral transparency. The description explains the classification outcome (accepted layered pairs vs genuine smells) and the consequence (explicit import needed). It does not disclose details like return format or whether it filters based on the 'smells_only' parameter beyond what the schema implies, but the behavior is reasonably described.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes necessary context (accepted layered pairs definition) and consequence (explicit import). No wasted words.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with one optional parameter, and the description covers the purpose and outcome. An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return details. The main gap is the lack of explanation for the 'smells_only' parameter, but overall it is adequate for its complexity.

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 has one parameter, 'smells_only' with a default of false. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description does not explain the parameter's effect (e.g., filtering results to only genuine smells). The baseline is 3 given the single parameter with default, but the description adds little about its semantics.

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 purpose: listing duplicate class names and distinguishing between accepted layered pairs and genuine smells. It also explains the implication (explicit import needed). Distinguished from siblings because it focuses on duplicates, while siblings like search_classes or get_usages serve different functions, but does not explicitly name 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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when checking for duplicate class names and needing to know which duplicates are acceptable vs smells. It provides the criterion for accepted layered pairs (ORM model + domain model sharing a name across layers). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection among siblings.

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