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

The description discloses that the tool mines the Dali graph and surfaces patterns, which is a read-only analysis. This aligns with the annotation 'readOnlyHint: true'. There is no contradiction, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 concise, with three distinct sections: a clear main sentence, a brief explanation of method, and a bulleted list of usage scenarios. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant 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?

The description explains the input and the general operation (mining the Dali graph for patterns). Since there is an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It is sufficiently complete for a pattern analysis tool, though it could mention the output format briefly.

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%, with both 'generator' and 'starting_grade' already documented. The description reinforces these by explaining they are used to find enhancement pairs and patterns. While the description doesn't add much beyond the schema, it provides context that ties parameters to the tool's purpose.

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: 'Show the most reliable path from a bad grade to an A on this generator.' It specifies the action (mine and surface patterns) and the resource (Dali graph). It differentiates from siblings like 'enhance_prompt' by focusing on analysis rather than direct enhancement.

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 lists three use cases under 'Use this when:' (e.g., low score and unsure what to fix, know which improvements matter most). This provides clear guidance on when to use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the positive guidance is strong and implicitly contrasts with other tools.

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