list_duplicates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does substantial work: it declares determinism, names the algorithm, states that no model is involved, and explains that the output is candidates only rather than an automatic merge. The append-only framing and 'Candidates only' make non-destructive behavior mostly inferable, though an explicit read-only/no-mutation statement would be stronger.

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 three compact sentences, each earning its place: algorithm and scope, domain rationale, and output semantics plus next action. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition of structured schema details.

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 tool with two optional, fully documented parameters, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: what it finds, why it exists, and what to do with the candidates. It lacks an explicit description of the return structure, but since there is no output schema and the tool is a list-style tool, candidate-only semantics plus the forward pointer to supersede are largely sufficient.

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 100%, so threshold and include_sessions are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of Jaccard reinforces the threshold's meaning but adds no new parameter semantics. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Deterministically find exact and near-duplicate notes'. It further differentiates from the sibling list tools by naming the MinHash/Jaccard method, explicitly saying 'no model', and clarifying that results are candidates rather than automatic actions. This is a focused, non-tautological statement of purpose.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is useful: because WikiMoth capture is append-only and never merges, restated content accumulates, and this tool surfaces it. It also advises the user to decide which candidate to keep and to consider superseding the older one, which pairs naturally with the sibling tool supersede. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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