find_duplicates

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

The description discloses the method (Jaccard similarity on tool name sets), which adds behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, no annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires special permissions.

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, concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It efficiently states what it does and how, with no redundant information.

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?

Given the simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. However, it lacks context on what the output looks like (e.g., a list of server pairs), which could help the agent use the results. Annotations could further clarify behavioral expectations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the org_id parameter. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, providing no extra context about default behavior or expected format. Baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool finds servers with overlapping tool definitions using Jaccard similarity on tool name sets. It uses specific verbs ('Find', 'Uses') and resources ('servers with overlapping tool definitions'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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 usage for identifying overlap, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like recommend_consolidation or get_inventory. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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