Check a capability map for anti-patterns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that detection is mechanical, enumerates the exact anti-pattern categories, and states that each is returned with a concrete fix. It does not discuss limitations, output shape, or how hierarchy is supplied, but the core behavioral contract is clear.

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 front-loaded with the core function and then enumerates the anti-patterns in a compact list. Though it is bilingual, both versions carry the same dense information without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has no output schema, so the description should clarify return values; it only says each anti-pattern comes with a concrete fix, not the response structure. It also leaves ambiguity about how depth-related anti-patterns (4+ levels) are detected from a flat list of capability names, which is relevant for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it elaborates on the analysis categories rather than on the capabilities or lang parameters. The 'one level at a time' guidance lives only in the schema, not in the description.

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 that it takes a list of capability names and mechanically detects eight named anti-patterns, returning a concrete fix for each. It is specific about the resource and operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related sibling business_architecture_antipatterns, leaving some potential for confusion.

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 implies the usage context: when you have capability names to check for anti-patterns. The input schema adds a useful guideline ('pass one level at a time for best results'), but the description itself does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so exclusions are missing.

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