analyze_relation_duplicates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It clearly states the tool is non-mutating (dry-run) and details the two detection tiers, offering complete behavioral insight without ambiguity.

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?

Three concise sentences: each serves a distinct purpose—announcing the tool, explaining the tiers, and clarifying non-mutation. No filler, front-loaded with key information.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and behavior well. However, it does not hint at the output format or how to interpret the report, which would enhance completeness.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter info, which 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 specifies that the tool analyzes duplicate relations in a three-tier process, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_duplicates (which likely targets entities) and consolidate_relations (which may merge). The verb 'analyze' and the detailed tier breakdown provide precise purpose.

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 explicitly states 'Report-only — never mutates the graph,' indicating it is safe for dry-run analysis. It implies use for detecting duplicates before cleaning, but does not contrast with alternative tools or specify when not to use it.

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