text_dedup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the effects of sort (sorts results) and keep_first (when false, keeps last occurrence), which adds meaningful behavioral context. However, it does not state the output format or address edge cases like whitespace or empty lines, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short clauses that immediately convey the main function and then the behavior of optional parameters. Every word earns its place with no 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is complete enough: it states the core operation and the two configurable behaviors. The output (deduped text) is naturally implied, and the absence of an output schema means no format details are required. Minor gaps about edge cases exist but are not critical for such a straightforward text tool.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains the semantics of sort and keep_first clearly, while text is self-evident as the line-based input. This provides significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 performs text line deduplication (文本行去重) with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling text tools like text_filter or text_replace. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or situations where a different tool would be appropriate. The only content is the operation and parameter behaviors, leaving usage entirely implied.

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