get_anti_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the returned resource, the nature of the content, the number of items, and the file size. It doesn't describe output formatting, but for a simple markdown file retrieval that is a minor gap.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: resource path, content summary, and usage trigger. The size note is efficient extra orientation.

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 a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what file is returned, what it contains, when to use it, and expected size. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description adds useful context about the content within the file, which is more than necessary.

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 ('Returns') and a precise resource (core/03-ANTI-PATTERNS.md), then summarizes the content. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling docs like get_protocols or get_gates by focusing on anti-patterns and rationalization.

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 tells the agent when to load: 'when you catch yourself rationalizing.' It doesn't name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger context is clear enough for selection.

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