Find likely duplicate wiki pages by title and tag similarity, returning page pairs with trust scores and reasons. Read-only: review matches, then merge manually with wiki_write.
Find likely duplicate wiki pages by title and tag similarity; returns pairs with each page's trust and the reason. Read-only, merges nothing: merge by hand with wiki_write.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | Agent name (default: main agent) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.73.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds value: it discloses that the operation is non-destructive ('merges nothing') and what the result contains (pairs with trust and reason). It does not mention cost, scale limits, or performance for a similarity scan, which keeps it short of a 5.
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 dense sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the read-only/merge guidance. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the return content (duplicate pairs with trust and reason). Combined with the safety annotations and the merge hand-off, an agent has everything needed to call and act on this tool.
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?
Only one optional parameter (agent_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about agent_id or its default behavior, which matches the baseline 3 for fully documented schemas.
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 and resource ('Find likely duplicate wiki pages'), the detection mechanism ('by title and tag similarity'), and the return shape ('pairs with each page's trust and the reason'). It also draws a clear boundary with the write sibling, so an agent can distinguish it from wiki_read/wiki_write at a glance.
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 explicitly states the limit of the tool ('Read-only, merges nothing') and names the alternative that performs the follow-up action ('merge by hand with wiki_write'). That is an explicit when-not plus a named alternative, which is exactly what routing guidance needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.