Codebase Context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns 'actionable team pattern recommendations' and 'consensus patterns,' but it does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, any rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structured data, pagination). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and what it returns. There is no wasted verbiage, and it efficiently communicates key information, though it could be slightly improved by integrating usage hints.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (one parameter with full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and output types but lacks behavioral details (e.g., safety, performance) and usage guidelines. Without an output schema, it should ideally describe the return format, but it only hints at it with 'Returns consensus patterns...'.

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 has 100% description coverage, with a single parameter 'category' fully documented via its enum values. The description adds some context by listing example categories ('DI, state management, testing, library wrappers, etc.') that align with the enum, but it does not provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already covers. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('actionable team pattern recommendations'), and it specifies the source ('based on codebase analysis') and types of patterns returned ('consensus patterns for DI, state management, testing, library wrappers, etc.'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (e.g., get_style_guide or get_codebase_metadata), which might also relate to codebase analysis or recommendations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like get_style_guide or get_codebase_metadata, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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