dup_find_copy_paste

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Detect' clearly implies a read-only analysis action and 'exact or near-exact' adds useful matching behavior, but the description omits whether the tool modifies files, what outputs it returns, or why an api_key may be needed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's main purpose without repetition.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral and return-value context. It does not mention what the tool returns, whether results are written to disk, supported file types, or how the api_key is used, leaving the tool underspecified for an agent.

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 describes 'directory' as 'Project directory to scan', but the optional 'api_key' parameter has no schema description and the tool description does not clarify its purpose. With only 50% schema coverage and no compensating explanation, parameter meaning is incomplete.

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 uses a specific verb ('Detect') with a clear resource ('exact or near-exact copy-paste code') and scope ('across files'). It is not a tautology, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling tool 'dup_find_similar_blocks'.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of related duplication-analysis tools like 'dup_find_similar_blocks' or when not to use it. The description only states the core function, leaving selection logic to inference.

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