Get Patterns

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about behavior: no note that results are implicitly filtered by the min_confidence (0.7) and max_risk_score defaults, no indication of result ordering, pagination, or whether this is a read-only operation. The word 'recommended' hints at ranking but never explains confidence or risk scoring.

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?

It is a single sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded, but the brevity is a product of under-specification rather than discipline. There is room for one or two more sentences of high-value guidance without bloat.

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 10-parameter tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin to guide correct invocation. An agent cannot know from this text how to construct meaningful filters or what the response will contain.

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?

Ten parameters with only 60% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to any of them. The undocumented ones — tags, type, sort_by, category — are not explained, and the description never even mentions that filtering by pattern vs. antipattern, category, or risk thresholds is possible.

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 single sentence names a specific verb and resource ('get recommended patterns and antipatterns for a specific technology'), which is clearer than a bare restatement of the title. However, it gives no way to distinguish this from plausibly overlapping siblings such as knowledge_hub, arch_advisor, or style_guardian, all of which could also surface guidance for a technology.

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 indication of when this tool should be chosen over its many siblings, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., must a project be initialized first via init_project?). The description offers no exclusions, no alternative routing, and no context about the intended workflow stage.

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