check_duplicate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It does useful work by disclosing the return payload and the interaction contract with write_vault (self-check plus refusal on hit), which is genuine context beyond structured fields. However, it is silent on what 'similar' means — no match threshold, no case sensitivity, no scoping to vault root, no indication that the call is side-effect free — so an agent cannot predict a false negative or understand the cost of a call.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then the when-to-use caveat — a sensible order with no filler sentences. Every line earns its place, though the guidance sentence runs long and could be split for faster scanning.

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?

Return shape is covered despite there being no output schema, and the write_vault interaction is explained, which covers the biggest unknowns. The remaining gap is parameter behavior: for a three-parameter, zero-coverage schema this description should say what each argument means and how matching is scoped.

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% and all three parameters are undocumented, yet the description never mentions any of them. It doesn't clarify what values `type` accepts, how `title` matching behaves, or what the optional `url` contributes to the similarity decision, so an agent must guess the semantics that drive the whole result.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: check whether a similar vault item already exists, and the following sentence pins down the exact return shape. It implicitly distinguishes itself from near-siblings like find_nodes and search_vault by framing the tool as a dedup decision, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Unusually strong routing guidance: it says write_vault already runs this check and refuses on a hit, so a separate call is only needed to look before building the node. It gives a concrete motivating scenario (deciding between a new save and an update before drafting content), covering both when to call and when not to.

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