get_fakenews_patterns

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns patterns and mentions the Obsidian notebook as the basis, but it does not disclose any side effects, safety profile, or limitations beyond this. It is a simple retrieval statement but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 sentence that starts with the action verb and delivers the core message without extraneous words. It is concise and well-structured.

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 (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate. It specifies the content ('patrones principales de desinformación') and the source ('cuaderno Obsidian'), which gives enough context for an agent to know what to expect. However, it does not describe the return format or any limitations, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly provides no parameter details as there are none to describe.

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 returns the main disinformation patterns in Venezuela, using the verb 'devuelve' and specifying the resource (patterns) and scope (Venezuela). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify_claim or search_official_sources by focusing on patterns rather than verification or source searching.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_official_sources or generate_factcheck_report. The usage is only implied from the purpose—when one needs disinformation patterns—but no exclusions or alternative references are included.

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