gameplay_pattern_search

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions 'deterministic heuristics' and 'indexed' sources, providing some insight into how it works. But it does not disclose that results may rely on a cached index (only hinted by the 'fresh' parameter), nor does it explain any potential staleness or performance implications. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Find') and the resource ('reusable gameplay patterns...'). The list of pattern types is useful and placed compactly. No wasted words.

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 non-mutating search tool with 100% schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context for selection: it clarifies scope (indexed Blueprints/widgets/level actors), method (deterministic heuristics), and example patterns. However, it omits any mention of return structure or result ordering, which would be helpful since there is no output schema. Still, for the tool's simplicity, it is largely 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists pattern types that directly mirror the enum values in the schema, offering little additional semantic value. It does not clarify the 'fresh' or 'path_prefix' parameters beyond their schema descriptions, so the description adds minimal extra 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 clearly states the tool's function: finding reusable gameplay patterns in indexed Blueprints, widgets, and level actors. It lists specific pattern types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like project_index_query or blueprint_inspect by focusing on high-level gameplay heuristics rather than raw asset queries.

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?

Usage is implied through the description: it is used when you need to locate gameplay patterns such as overlap logic or key-door flows. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_index_query or blueprint_build_from_description, leaving some ambiguity for an agent selecting among related tools.

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