check_duplicate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool is a 'check' and returns matches and a recommendation, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive nature or disclose any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the action and usage. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary information.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter explanations, the description provides basic purpose and usage but omits details on what constitutes a duplicate or how the recommendation is structured. It is adequate but not fully complete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond their names (proposed_name, proposed_props, purpose). It fails to add meaning about formats, constraints, or usage rules for these parameters, which is insufficient for a tool with three parameters.

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's purpose: 'Check if a proposed component would duplicate an existing one.' It also specifies when to call it ('BEFORE creating a new component') and what it returns ('similarity-ranked matches and a recommendation'), making it distinct from sibling tools like search_components.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call this BEFORE creating a new component.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool. However, it does not discuss when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to decide.

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