extract_game_design_patterns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only extraction operation but doesn't specify if it modifies data, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output entails (e.g., format, size, or errors). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Extract common game design patterns') and provides brief examples ('event patterns, map layouts, etc.') without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of extracting design patterns, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'extract' means operationally, what the output looks like, or any behavioral traits. This leaves the agent under-informed for a tool that likely returns structured data.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'project_path' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify path formats or constraints). This meets the baseline score of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'extract' and the resource 'common game design patterns', with examples like 'event patterns, map layouts, etc.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on creation, analysis, or listing (e.g., create_map, analyze_project_structure, list_maps). However, it doesn't specify the exact scope or output format, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), exclusions (e.g., not for new projects), or compare it to similar tools like analyze_project_structure or generate_project_context. This leaves the agent with minimal context for selection.

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