find_duplicates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing details such as whether results are grouped, ordering, or any side effects (though none are expected for a query). It lacks context on the return format beyond the existence of an output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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?

For a simple query tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is sufficient to convey the core behavior. It doesn't elaborate on edge cases or output structure, but the output schema likely covers those details. Minor ambiguity around 'share' (whether it returns a flat list of duplicates or groups) is acceptable given the schema.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description clearly explains the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 verb (Return) and resource (elements) with a specific criterion (share the same type+name combination). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_by_name and find_by_type, which focus on single matches rather than duplicates.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_by_name, find_by_type, or search. It does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this tool the preferred choice.

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