find-duplicates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and meets it thoroughly. It discloses read-only behavior, inability to delete photos, return structure (groupCount vs returned), the 100-group cap default, newest-first ordering, and per-member details. It also warns about the exact-match limitation and explains the recommended review workflow.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (Use when, Returns, Do not use, Safety) and is appropriately sized given the tool's complexity and absence of annotations. Every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, behavior, limitations, and follow-up actions without 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 tool's complexity and lack of annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it explains use cases, exact-match constraints, return value semantics, safety posture, and manual fallback procedures. The presence of an output schema does not detract from the need for this context, and the description delivers it comprehensively.

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%, and the schema already documents both parameters, including the limit default and its relationship to groupCount. The description reiterates this information but adds no deeper parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 finds exact duplicates across the library, with a specific verb ('find') and resource ('duplicates'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get-photos or query by emphasizing exact-match semantics and providing concrete use cases such as cleanup after double import and pre-migration auditing.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections provide clear conditions for tool selection, including exclusions for near-duplicates and edited copies. It also names complementary tools (get-thumbnail, create-album, add-to-album) and suggests a manual workflow when writes are disabled, giving actionable guidance beyond basic usage.

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