find_tool_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions analysis but does not detail how the analysis is performed, what data sources are used, whether it involves read-only operations or mutations, or any rate limits or permissions required. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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 without unnecessary details. It avoids redundancy and waste, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the analysis focus from the output implications, but overall it is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 complexity (analysis of patterns with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the analysis yields, how results are formatted, or any behavioral traits like data sources or limitations. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation and expected outcomes.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters with enums and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact or providing examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra description input.

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 states the tool 'analyze tool usage patterns, workflows, and successful practices,' which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity about what resources or data it operates on. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_conversations' or 'list_recent_sessions' by focusing on patterns rather than direct data retrieval, but the verb 'analyze' is vague without clarifying the analysis method or output format.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for analyzing patterns, but it does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not differentiate from 'find_similar_queries' or 'get_error_solutions,' leaving the agent to infer based on general terms without clear context.

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