code_pattern_check

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It only mentions 'using LLM' but fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires permissions, nor does it explain what 'checking' entails (e.g., does it modify anything?).

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices valuable detail. It does not earn its place because it leaves critical information out.

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 and minimal schema descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the result of the check looks like or how the tool integrates with other tools.

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 elaborate on the parameters 'project_path' or 'code'. The agent cannot infer what values are expected or how they relate to the checking process.

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 action ('Check'), the resource ('code against stored conventions'), and the method ('using LLM'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'code_quality_check'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'code_quality_check' or 'audit_batch'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or use-case hints.

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