Detect Duplicates

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already assure safety and idempotency. Description adds that it uses SHA-256 hashes, which is beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Short and front-loaded: first line states purpose. Parameter list is clear and separately sectioned. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 good annotations and full schema coverage, description covers usage, parameters, and return structure. No output schema, so the return description is helpful. Slight gap: no mention of result format or limit on duplicate groups.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description's parameter section mirror schema, adding default for min_size=1 but not much else. Baseline 3 as per instructions.

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?

Clearly states it finds file duplicates using SHA-256 hashes in a directory. The verb 'Detect' and resource 'duplicates' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like fc_checksum (computes checksums) and fc_search_files (searches content).

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?

Implies usage for finding duplicates via parameters, but no guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Siblings like fc_checksum or fc_file_info might compete, but not addressed.

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