search_thinking_patterns

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

No annotations provided; description lacks disclosure of search behavior (e.g., exact/partial match, result set limits, persistence). Only mentions 'display' but no detail on what happens with empty filter.

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?

Description is brief and front-loaded, but includes 'Args:' formatting which is slightly non-standard. No redundant information.

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?

Despite having an output schema, description does not explain return values, empty results behavior, or pagination. Lacks completeness for a search tool with no annotations.

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 0%, but description adds meaning beyond schema by stating pattern_name is 'Optional filter — search for a specific pattern by name'. This clarifies usage but could be more specific (e.g., wildcard support).

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Search and display' with clear resource 'user thinking patterns learned over time'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_thinking_pattern' or 'get_user_thinking_model'.

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 but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like 'get_user_thinking_model' or 'search_decisions'. No when-not-to-use or context exclusions.

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