Analyze Duplicate Files with Smart Recommendations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds context about recommendation criteria but does not disclose return format, how recommendations are presented, or the absence of actual file modification. It is consistent with annotations but adds limited behavioral depth.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no fluff and the main action front-loaded. It could add a second sentence on usage without losing conciseness, but as-is it is appropriately lean.

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 tool with 4 parameters (2 with enums), 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, this description is significantly incomplete. It omits parameter meanings, return format, and practical usage context, leaving the agent to guess critical details like what auto_select_keep does or how response_format affects 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly explains recommendation_strategy via the phrase 'based on location, name quality, and age' but leaves directory, response_format, and auto_select_keep unexplained. The agent gets little help understanding parameter meaning or how to set them.

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 finds duplicate files and suggests keep/delete actions based on three specific criteria. The verb 'suggests' distinguishes it from the find-only or delete-only siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 is given for when to use this tool versus siblings like file_organizer_find_duplicate_files or file_organizer_delete_duplicates. The agent must infer that this is for analysis/recommendation rather than listing or deletion, which is not explicitly stated.

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