dup_find_similar_blocks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'find' and does not state whether the tool modifies files, only reports results, scans the given directory, or has other side effects. The output shape and any constraints on scanning are also undisclosed.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

This tool has no annotations and no output schema, yet the description only provides a high-level purpose. Missing are output expectations, clarification that this is an analysis-only operation, and any relationship to duplicate-detection siblings, leaving an agent under-informed for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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%, so the schema already documents directory, min_lines, and api_key. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the generic 'codebase' context, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a clear action ('Find similar code blocks across the codebase') and a clear purpose ('could be consolidated'), so an agent understands the basic function. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool dup_find_copy_paste, which likely has overlapping intent.

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 phrase 'could be consolidated' implies this tool is for identifying deduplication/refactoring opportunities, which is a usable usage signal. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of related alternatives such as dup_find_copy_paste or dup_suggest_extraction.

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