run_dedup

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the similarity method (Jaccard), the namespace scope, the exact result fields (existing_id/new_content/similarity/action), the cap of 20 findings, and explicitly states that no merge or delete occurs. That is substantive behavioral context an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Each sentence adds useful information: detection method, read-only behavior, returned fields, and result cap. There is no repetitive or wasted text.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing the returned fields and stating the maximum number of findings. Combined with the 100% parameter schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and understand what it will return.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents api_key, agent_id, and namespace. The description mentions scanning 'one namespace or all namespaces,' which mirrors the schema's 'null for all' note without adding new syntax or format guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter documentation.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Scan for duplicate memories and report findings.' It further distinguishes the tool by naming its detection method (lexical Jaccard similarity) and its read-only scope, making it clearly different from mutating siblings like delete_memory or forget_memory.

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 makes the use case clear: scan for near-duplicates in one namespace or all namespaces and report findings without changing data. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as delete_memory or confirm_read, but the read-only constraint and returned 'action' field give an agent enough context to know this is a detection step rather than a cleanup step.

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