programming_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits: results carry syntax evidence and confidence, and catalogue=True avoids source scans (a cost/behavior distinction). It omits the read-only/safety profile, how pagination behaves, and what happens when filters match nothing.

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 sentences with no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before the filtering/catalogue clause. The second sentence is somewhat dense with multiple clauses, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. But for a 6-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the agent still lacks guidance on pagination (limit/offset) and the token_budget control, leaving real gaps.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains path, pattern, and catalogue semantics, but leaves limit, offset, and token_budget entirely undocumented in both places, so it covers only about half the 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 names a specific verb+resource ("Explain 12 programming patterns") and adds scope ("at actual source locations, with syntax evidence and confidence"), which clearly separates it from sibling analysis tools like grep, findings, or file_outline. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

"Filter by file/path and pattern ID; catalogue=True lists the supported concepts without source scans" gives concrete usage direction for the catalogue path and for filtering. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance against sibling tools (e.g. grep for raw text search) and no stated prerequisites, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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