pdf_dedupe

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds the detection mechanism (content fingerprint) and the exact shape of the result keys, which is useful context, but says nothing about performance on large file sets or how near-duplicate similarity is computed.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then a structured return-format block and a runnable example. Every section earns its place except the return-format block, which partly duplicates the existing output schema.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema and readOnly annotation, the description covers purpose, output keys, and a concrete example. The main gap is the absence of any when-to-use guidance, which is not offset elsewhere.

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%, with both 'paths' and 'threshold' documented in the schema (including the 0.85 default and the 0-1 range). The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (detect) and resource (PDFs) with a clear scope: exact and near-duplicate matching via content fingerprint. It is unambiguous and distinct from every sibling tool, none of which do duplicate detection, though it doesn't explicitly reference those 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 never states when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement and the example, leaving the agent to infer the trigger conditions.

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