cc_duplicates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that grouping is based on content_digest, but does not disclose output format, ordering, pagination, whether empty groups are included, or meaning of the 'crawl' parameter. For a read-only analysis tool, this lacks sufficient behavioral detail beyond the basic grouping criterion.

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, front-loaded with the core function ('groups pages with identical content') and then adds context about SEO relevance. Every sentence earns its place; there is no unnecessary fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain the meaning of the required 'domain' parameter, the optional 'crawl' parameter, or the 'limit' parameter. Without these, a tool user cannot confidently invoke it correctly. The contextual gap is significant for a tool with three parameters and zero parameter descriptions.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (domain, crawl, limit). It fails to mention that domain is required or that limit defaults to 25, and the 'crawl' parameter is entirely unaddressed, leaving agents without enough information to set parameters correctly.

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 it groups pages with identical content (matching content_digest) and frames this as a duplicate-content SEO issue. This is a specific verb+resource description that distinguishes it from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative like 'use cc_compare for...'.

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 detecting duplicate content in SEO contexts ('типовая SEO-проблема'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide exclusions. Usage guidance is present only by implication.

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