check_repeated_names

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It communicates the check action, per-file return status, and supported types, implying a read-only operation. But it lacks specifics on duplicate criteria (exact name match, extension handling), folder vs. whole-KB scope, and the exact shape of the returned status, so transparency is only partial.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then scope. There is no filler; every clause adds value.

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?

The core purpose and scope are clear for a simple pre-upload check. However, with no output schema, the description should have detailed the format of the duplicate status and how folder_id affects the check. These gaps make it only minimally complete.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema for folder_id or knowledge_base_id; it only refers to files generically, so it neither compensates nor enhances.

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 explicitly states the tool checks for existing same-name files in the knowledge base before upload and returns duplicate status per file. It clearly scopes to file types (PDF/Word/PPT/Excel/images) and excludes webpages/notes, which distinguishes it from siblings like upload_file and create_note.

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 tells when to use the tool ('before uploading files') and gives an explicit exclusion ('not applicable to web pages and notes'). However, it does not directly name alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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