Detect Test Patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only restates a detecting action and does not say whether the repository is modified, how the scan is scoped, or what kind of output is produced. This leaves safety and side-effect assumptions entirely implicit.

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 one short sentence and places the core action first. It is concise without filler, though it is minimal enough that it does not add much beyond the title.

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 tool is simple: one documented parameter and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, given many sibling analysis tools, the lack of any qualifier about which patterns or anti-patterns are detected or when this tool is relevant leaves the description only minimally complete.

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%, and the single repo_path parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the meaning.

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 identifies a clear action ('Detect') and resource ('test patterns and anti-patterns' in a repository), so an agent knows what the tool operates on. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like analyze_test_coverage or analyze_flaky_tests, so it stops short of a fully differentiating definition.

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?

There is no statement about when to prefer this tool over sibling analyzers, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is only implied by the tool's name and generic phrase 'in a repository'.

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