search_duplicates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the core behavior (exact filename match) but does not clarify default search scope (e.g., without folder_path) or case sensitivity. This leaves ambiguity about the tool's behavior.

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 with a clear headline and parameter list. It front-loads the purpose. However, the Args block could be more elegantly formatted.

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?

With 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the tool's function and parameters. However, it fails to specify the default search scope (without folder_path) and what 'potential duplicates' means in terms of output grouping, leaving some gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It adds meaning: 'exact' for filename, 'limit to specific folder' for folder_path, and states max_results default. This goes beyond schema property names, though case-sensitivity or pattern details are missing.

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 clearly states it finds files with the same name (potential duplicates), using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_files and search_by_attributes.

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 implies usage for finding duplicate filenames but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Among many search siblings, more direction would help differentiate.

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