recall_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. It discloses the source of patterns and the return format, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe side effects. While 'search' implies read-only, the lack of explicit disclosure of behavioral traits leaves a moderate 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?

The description is compact and well-structured with clear sections for usage, args, and returns. Every sentence provides valuable information without redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. Minor omissions like behavior when no patterns are found or result size are not critical, but the lack of explicit read-only disclosure keeps it from a perfect 5.

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 schema has 0% coverage, but the description's Args section fully explains both parameters: query with an example, and limit with a default and meaning. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, adding clear semantic value.

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 tool searches pattern memory for workflows/code similar to the task. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_pattern (which saves) and CAD tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description gives explicit guidance: 'Use when your own knowledge is insufficient, before falling back to trial-and-error.' It also notes patterns come from save_pattern and completed sessions, providing useful context, but does not name specific alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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