Find Duplicate Packages

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are ranked by wasted bytes and that a prior webpack stats load is required. However, it does not mention the output shape, whether the operation is read-only, or failure/edge-case behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and ranking behavior, followed by the key prerequisite. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 relatively simple analysis tool with two well-documented parameters, the description covers the core purpose, ranking behavior, and prerequisite. It is not fully complete because it ignores the overlapping sibling tools and provides no output format guidance, but it is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 100%, so buildId and limit are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable under the high-coverage baseline.

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 identifies the resource (npm packages bundled into multiple chunks) and the action (find), with a specific ranking criterion (wasted bytes). It is not tautological and conveys a useful mental model, but it does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping siblings like get_shared_chunks or explain_shared_chunks.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: 'Requires load_webpack_stats first.' However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over get_shared_chunks or other related siblings, nor does it mention when not to use it. This gives partial context but leaves selection logic to the agent.

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