find_duplicate_cis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the grouping logic ('grouping CIs on a field and returning groups with more than one record') and pagination behavior (limit, offset, has_more, next_offset). This goes beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, a paragraph explaining the logic, three examples, a bullet-style args section, and a returns section. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the 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?

Given 5 parameters (none required) and an output schema, the description explains the return structure ('duplicate_groups' list) and pagination fields. No critical gaps remain for an agent to understand input/output.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full burden. It explains each parameter: ci_class (defaults to cmdb_ci), match_field (lists common choices like 'name', 'serial_number'), name_filter (STARTSWITH filter), limit (range 1-1000, default 25), offset. Examples demonstrate usage.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Find CIs that share the same value for a given field within a class.' It specifies the grouping logic and provides examples that differentiate it from siblings like 'explain_duplicate' (which explains a specific duplicate rather than finding all).

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 states it is 'useful for finding CIs that may have been created by multiple discovery sources or manual entry,' giving context for use. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'explain_duplicate' or 'search_cis,' leaving room for misinterpretation.

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