anti_patterns_in

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the core behavior (listing and filtering) but does not disclose additional traits such as pagination, sorting, performance implications, or whether it is a read-only operation. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by the optional filter explanation. No extra words, every sentence adds value.

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 optional parameter, no required arguments, output schema existing), the description covers the essential behavior. It does not explain return format but that is likely handled by the output schema. Minor gap: no mention of the catalog source.

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% description coverage, so the description adds value by explaining that the 'category' parameter is a keyword matched against name/intent. This clarifies the parameter's semantics beyond the schema's basic type 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 the tool lists anti-patterns from a catalog, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('anti-patterns'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on anti-patterns rather than patterns, frameworks, or recipes.

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 explains the optional category argument for narrowing results, implying when to use it (e.g., to get a subset). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'find_pattern' or 'pattern_for_symptom', nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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