docdup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether this is a read-only analysis, not whether it mutates state, not cost or scope behavior. The only signal is the 'ce.docdup-report schema' hint, which weakly implies the shape of the result but not the operation's side effects.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler or redundancy. However, its brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing, which caps it below 5.

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 zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is too thin: an agent cannot tell whether it analyzes docs, code comments, or markdown, what duplication criteria apply, or how to interpret results. Naming the report schema partially compensates but is not enough.

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?

Single optional 'path' parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('subpath (default: project root)'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no meaning about path semantics (relative vs absolute, file vs directory scope), 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?

The phrase 'documentation-duplication judgment' identifies the resource (documentation duplication) but uses a vague nominalization ('judgment') rather than a clear verb like detect/report/compare. It gives no differentiation from close siblings such as check_duplication, clone, similar_units, or scan. The parenthetical schema name hints that output is a report, but the core purpose remains inferred.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer — significant given check_duplication and similar_units sit adjacent. No prerequisites, no inputs assumed, no workflow context.

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