mcquest_pattern_audit

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 opens with 'READ ONLY' and states 'Returns evidence only — no modifications,' which strongly signals that the tool is non-mutating. It does not disclose more granular behavioral details, but the safety-relevant behavior is well covered.

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, front-loaded with the read-only warning, and contains no filler. The category enumeration is long but directly useful to the agent and earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, valid categories, default path, and use case. The missing semantics for 'path' and 'max_results_per_category' are minor gaps since both have defaults and the tool is otherwise simple.

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%, so the description must compensate. It fully documents the 'categories' parameter by listing every valid value, but it does not explain 'path' semantics or what 'max_results_per_category' actually controls, leaving two of three parameters to inference.

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 a specific action — running predefined MCQuest responsive/layout pattern searches — and names the resource being audited. It also lists the exact categories, which distinguishes it from the generic search/read/list sibling tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use for auditing potential mobile/responsive issues,' giving the agent a concrete context for when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is clear.

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