check_duplicates

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

The description says the tool 'scans' for duplicates, which implies an inspection-only operation, while annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. It does not disclose what destructive action may occur, what gets changed, or whether duplicates are merely reported or actually removed/modified.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It communicates the scan targets and condition efficiently.

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?

Although an output schema exists and no parameters need explanation, the description omits the critical destructive behavior implied by annotations. An agent cannot tell whether this tool reports, deletes, or otherwise modifies duplicate/overlapping elements.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource scope: scanning columns, beams, walls, footings, and slabs for duplicates or overlaps. It is clear what the tool inspects, but it does not distinguish its role from nearby structural cleanup or modification tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternatives to prefer. An agent can infer that it is a duplicate-checking tool, but no explicit workflow or prerequisite is provided.

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