check_anti_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a search operation (read-only) but doesn't disclose details like whether it modifies state, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Acceptable but could be more informative.

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?

Extremely concise with a clear trigger instruction and parameter description. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Well front-loaded.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, and output schema present), the description is sufficient. It covers the key context and trigger condition, though it doesn't explain return format or limitations.

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 has 0% coverage for description parameter, but the description adds 'What you're about to build or the approach you're considering', clarifying the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 'Searches for known mistakes matching your approach', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinctly identifies the tool's purpose of checking for anti-patterns before writing code, setting it apart from 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?

Explicitly states 'TRIGGER: Call this BEFORE writing new code or designing a system', giving clear context for when to use. No mention of when not to use or alternatives, but the trigger instruction is strong enough for an agent.

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