find_duplicates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that duplicates are found via content hash, returns a dictionary, and shows default recursive behavior. While it does not explicitly state it is read-only or cover error handling, the operation's non-destructive nature is implied by 'Find duplicate files' and the described return format.

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 and well-structured into Purpose, Args, Returns, and Example. Every section serves a purpose, with no redundant or extraneous 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, return format, and includes examples. No critical information is missing.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description thoroughly explains both parameters: 'directory' with default current directory and 'recursive' with default True, plus example usage. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 'Find duplicate files in a directory based on content hash' with a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools 'list_files' and 'delete_duplicates' by focusing on duplicate detection rather than listing or deletion.

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 provides clear context on what the tool does and includes parameter defaults and examples. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of the sibling tools, so it lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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