detect_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the analysis scope and the minimum-data requirement, implying a non-mutating read/analysis operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm that no data is written, nor does it describe handling of missing data or the exact form of the returned result.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the pattern categories and the data requirement. Every phrase earns its place, with no repetition of schema details or filler.

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?

For a moderately complex analysis tool with no output schema or annotations, the description gives enough directional completeness by enumerating the detected pattern types and the 3-day minimum. It omits explicit output-format details and does not differentiate from sibling tools, but the named patterns are sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 reinforces the days minimum but adds no additional meaning for targetLow or targetHigh beyond what the schema already provides (mg/dL units and defaults).

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 a specific verb ('Analyze'), a specific resource ('glucose data over multiple days'), and a concrete goal ('detect recurring patterns') with enumerated pattern categories. This clearly distinguishes it from single-point tools like get_current_glucose or get_glucose_history and from summary-oriented tools like get_statistics.

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 clear usage context: use this tool when you need multi-day recurring-pattern detection across several named categories. It also states an explicit prerequisite ('Requires at least 3 days of data'), which helps an agent decide whether the tool is applicable. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it does not reach a 5.

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