anti_pattern_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool performs a quality check without destructive effects, but does not disclose output format, rate limits, or prerequisites. Adequate for a read-only analysis tool.

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 clear sentences, no wasted words. Purpose and key usage guidance are front-loaded immediately.

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 no output schema, the description is thorough in listing detection examples and explaining genre scoping. However, it omits the format of results (e.g., pass/fail list), leaving a minor gap.

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 describes both parameters (content, genre) with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining that genre scopes genre-specific gates, going beyond the schema's description. Baseline 3 is exceeded due to this added context.

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 runs a 35-gate quality checklist (slop test) on HTML/CSS content, listing specific AI design tells it detects. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'validate_combo' or 'audit_accessibility'.

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?

Explicitly mentions to specify genre to scope genre-specific gates, providing usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for related tasks.

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