find_duplicate_filenames

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a heuristic matching behavior ('likely') and extension-insensitive comparison via the example, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how matching is performed, or how results are grouped.

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 a useful parenthetical example. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant language or restatement of the tool name.

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 no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the description must provide most of the context, but it leaves threshold semantics and behavioral expectations undefined. Although an output schema exists, the description alone is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with correct parameters.

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 for parameter meaning. It only indirectly explains 'directory' via 'media directory' and gives an example of duplicate filenames, but it never explains the 'threshold' parameter or how it influences duplicate detection.

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 action ('Find'), a clear resource ('likely-duplicate filenames'), and a context ('media directory'). The example 'movie.avi vs movie.mp4' makes the matching concept concrete and distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_largest_torrent or find_imdb_candidates.

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 implies when to use the tool: when checking a media directory for files that may represent the same content under different names. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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