hipocampo_dedup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that merging is optional and that a report is returned, but it does not mention whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or what side effects occur. The detection logic and criteria for duplicates are also unspecified.

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 concise (a few lines) with a clear structure including Args and Returns. The purpose is stated first. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, output schema exists), the description covers the parameter and return value generically. However, it lacks details on what constitutes a duplicate, the report format (though output schema may cover that), and any operational context like data consistency or performance impact.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters, but the description compensates well by explaining the 'merge' parameter's effect (if True, merge duplicates; if False, only show analysis). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 detects and optionally merges duplicates in memory tables. The verb 'detect' and 'merge' paired with 'duplicates' and 'memory tables' gives a specific resource and action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like hipocampo_auto_repair, which may also handle duplicates.

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 behavior of the 'merge' parameter but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include hipocampo_auto_repair, which could overlap, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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