find_duplicates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that omitting topic triggers an all-memory scan and that grouping is based on shared significant words, but it does not mention read-only/safety characteristics, performance implications of scanning all memories, or what similarity means operationally. The provided behavior is adequate but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and mode behavior, then provides compact parameter notes. The Args section partly repeats schema information, but it adds useful details such as the maximum limit and the empty-topic behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. Given the two optional parameters and dual-mode behavior, the description supplies enough to invoke the tool correctly. It would be stronger with a note on cost/performance when scanning all memories or on how duplicates are judged.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does document both parameters: topic is optional and empty means scan all, while limit defaults to 10 and caps at 100. It also clarifies that limit controls results in one mode or groups in the other. It could go further by explaining how topic similarity is matched, but the essentials are covered.

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 a specific verb and resource: finding potentially duplicate memories. It also explains the two operating modes, which differentiates it from a generic memory search. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools such as search_memory or find_by_entity, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It explains the internal mode selection: provide a topic to find similar memories, or omit it to scan all memories for groups sharing significant words. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over search_memory, list_memories, or find_by_entity, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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