hipocampo_dedup

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that merge=False is read-only and safe, while merge=True is destructive and irreversible. It also defines what constitutes a duplicate (embedding+text similarity above 0.95) and outlines report contents, providing behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured into short paragraphs: purpose, safety modes, definition, report contents, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy, making it appropriately sized.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, duplicate definition, report contents, and relationship to sibling tools. It leaves no significant gaps for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 only parameter 'merge' is fully explained in the description: False (default) is analysis-only and True merges irreversibly. Since the schema provides no description for the parameter, this explanation fills the gap entirely.

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?

Description states 'Detecta y opcionalmente fusiona duplicados en las tablas de memoria' – a clear verb+resource. It further distinguishes from hipocampo_maintenance by noting this tool is for 'uso puntual o previsualización antes del merge', which differentiates it from that sibling.

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?

It explicitly says 'Para ejecutar dedup como parte del ciclo completo de mantenimiento, usar hipocampo_maintenance' and advises 'Ejecutar primero sin merge para previsualizar', giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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