get_duplicate_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not explain how 'same source media file' is determined (exact path, checksum, etc.) or what is returned (list of items, count, etc.). The lack of output schema and behavioral details limits transparency.

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 consists of two short sentences: the first defines the action and resource, the second adds a use case. It is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

The task is simple (no parameters) and the purpose is clear, but the description lacks details on what constitutes a duplicate and what the tool returns. Given no output schema and simple function, it is minimally complete but could benefit from specifying the return format.

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 zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, and a baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter documentation is required.

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 project items that reference the same source media file, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'consolidate_duplicates' (which acts on duplicates) and 'find_items_by_media_path' (which may filter by path but not necessarily 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?

The description mentions 'Useful for consolidation,' implying a use case before consolidating duplicates, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'consolidate_duplicates' or 'find_items_by_media_path.' There is no guidance on when not to use it.

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