timps_pattern_detector

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'detect', implying a read-only analysis, but does not disclose whether it modifies files, what output it produces, how it accesses the codebase, or any limitations. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant wording. Every word adds value.

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?

The tool is relatively complex (detects multiple pattern types) yet has no output schema, no annotations, and a minimal description. It does not explain what happens with the 'request' parameter, how the codebase is located, what the return format is, or any constraints. This is inadequate for a tool that needs to guide an agent on invocation and interpretation.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds nothing about the parameters beyond the schema; it does not explain how 'request' should be phrased or which languages are supported beyond the default. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full 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 detects specific code anti-patterns (duplicate code, god classes, magic numbers) and general anti-patterns, so the purpose is well-defined. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like timps_tech_debt_quantifier or timps_refactoring_agent, though the focus on detection of these specific patterns is fairly unique.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of required context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The description is purely a statement of function without any usage direction.

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