find_duplicate_files

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description reinforces the read-only nature and adds context about duplicate detection logic and limitations (no content hash). This goes beyond annotations by explaining the grouping and accessibility checker context.

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 paragraph of moderate length, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sentences for output hint). Still, 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 description lacks any mention of the output/return value, which is critical since there is no output schema. It would be helpful to state that the tool returns a list of duplicate file entries or similar, especially since it's meant for cleanup. This is a notable gap.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (course_id and folder_id). The tool description does not add new semantic information beyond the schema; it only references 'course' and 'folder' which are already clear. Baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool finds duplicate files in a course's Files area based on same name and size, with specific context of repeated course copies. It distinguishes itself from other file-related tools by focusing on duplicates for cleanup.

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 the tool is used to surface duplicates left by course copies for cleanup with delete_file. It implies when to use it but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The grouping logic is clarified, aiding appropriate invocation.

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