Find Duplicate Files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true alerting agents this is a safe read. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema: it groups by display name + size, explicitly states file listings carry no hash, and clarifies same-name different-size files are excluded. That's real algorithmic disclosure. Would be a 5 if the return shape were described, but it is not.

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 compact, informative, and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. Each clause earns its place – the cleanup use case, the lack of content hash, and the same-name-different-size exclusion are all decision-relevant.

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 fully explains the algorithm, the reasoning, and how results relate to an action (delete_file). It does not specify the output shape, but with no output schema and a read-only tool that returns duplicate listings, the behavior is sufficiently clear for an agent to invoke it. Minor gap: it doesn't state limits on how many duplicates or performance caveats, but these are not critical.

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 explains both parameters. The description adds context for why folder_id matters (scoping to subfolders) and clarifies the grouping criteria, but doesn't go far beyond schema semantics. Baseline 3 for full schema coverage is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('find') and resource ('duplicate files in a course Files area'), with a precise working definition ('same name and size'). It also gives the rationale (flags by accessibility checkers) and names the complementary cleanup tool, which clearly distinguishes it from file-listing siblings like list_files and get_file.

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 explains when to use the tool (when accessibility checkers flag duplicates from course copies) and what to do with results (clean up with delete_file). It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it, but it does note the grouping limitation, which implies when it's insufficient. No alternative tool is directly contrasted, but the context is clear.

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