find_duplicatesIdentify byte-identical files by comparing new items to a target area and among themselves, so you can remove redundant copies.
Byte-identical files: new items vs. a target area and among themselves.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | Yes | ||
| paths | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": "object"
- },
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "find_duplicatesOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive read operation, so the description need not restate safety. It adds useful comparison semantics: byte-identical matching, new items versus a target area, and duplicates among the new items themselves. It does not describe traversal behavior, performance characteristics, or result shape.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and has no filler. However, it reads as an overly terse fragment, and its brevity leaves important parameter meaning under-specified rather than efficiently conveyed.
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?
With two required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description should do more to explain inputs and expected behavior. It gives a conceptual comparison model but leaves the agent without enough detail to call the tool confidently.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining paths and area. It hints that 'new items' maps to paths and 'target area' maps to area, but it does not clarify acceptable path formats, whether paths are files or directories, or what area denotes operationally.
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 identifies the resource and criterion clearly: byte-identical files, compared between new items and a target area and among themselves. It implicitly distinguishes exact-duplicate finding from the sibling find_similar, though it does not name that sibling.
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?
It does not say when to use this tool versus find_similar or search, nor does it give prerequisites or exclusions. The byte-identical criterion implies exact matching, but the agent must infer when this is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.