Find Duplicate Files

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well established. The description adds that duplicates are detected via SHA-256 and that it shows wasted space, which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential performance implications for large directories, handling of symlinks, or the exact response structure beyond hinting at 'potential wasted space.' Given the annotations, a 3 is fair.

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 two sentences, both concise and purposeful. The first sentence states the core function, the second adds a useful detail about output. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 read-only duplicate finder with a fairly complete schema, the description covers the essential purpose and output hint. However, it does not explain the format of the returned data, how pagination works (limit/offset), or how it differs from analyze_duplicates. With no output schema and no usage guidance, the definition is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 75% (directory, limit, offset have descriptions, response_format lacks one). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states. Since the schema carries most of the load, the baseline of 3 applies. No extra clarification about how these parameters interact or expected formats is provided.

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 based on content (SHA-256 hash) and reports potential wasted space. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like analyze_duplicates, so it loses a point on differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With several sibling tools (analyze_duplicates, delete_duplicates, list_files), the agent is left to infer the appropriate context. There is no mention of when not to use it or what other tools are better suited for related tasks.

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