css_find_duplicates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool analyzes CSS content and identifies redundant declarations/rules, but it doesn't disclose whether the tool modifies the input, whether it returns a report or a diff, or any side effects. Since it likely only analyzes (not modifies) CSS, the description partially implies a read-only analysis, but without explicit safety details it's only a 3.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It's efficient and readable, but it could also have included brief sibling differentiation or usage guidance without excessive length.

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 description is adequate for a simple analysis tool with two parameters and no output schema. It explains what the tool analyzes, but it doesn't specify the output format or how the results are returned, which would be useful for an agent to interpret results. With no output schema, this gap is more noticeable.

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 100%: the 'css' parameter is described as 'CSS stylesheet content to analyze for duplicates' and 'api_key' as 'API key for authentication'. The description's phrase 'duplicate or overlapping CSS declarations' partially adds meaning to the 'css' parameter, but it doesn't go beyond the schema's basic purpose. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which fits.

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 action ('Find') and the resource ('duplicate or overlapping CSS declarations and redundant rules'), which is specific enough to convey the tool's function. It distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'css_find_unused' by focusing on duplicates/overlaps/redundancy rather than unused CSS, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.

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 the tool is for analyzing CSS stylesheet content for duplicates, which is apparent from the description and the 'css' parameter. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like css_find_unused or css_optimize, and it doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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