library_findDuplicates

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

The term 'potential' indicates non-definitive results, and the criteria (file location, artist+title) are disclosed. However, there is no mention of output format, grouping behavior, or limitations. With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Find potential duplicate tracks') and immediately specifies the criteria. No unnecessary words.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a clear and reasonably complete picture. It explains what the tool does and the criteria used, though it could mention what the result looks like (e.g., grouped duplicates) to be fully complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context by revealing the internal logic (matching on file location and artist+title), which is useful beyond the empty schema.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Find potential duplicate tracks'. It also specifies two distinct methods (file location and artist+title), distinguishing it from sibling tools like library_findMissing and library_search.

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 duplicate detection but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like library_search or library_fuzzySearch. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so the usage context is only implied.

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