match_patterns

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

With no annotations provided, the description properly carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states this is token overlap, not comprehension, and that results are a shortlist to verify, never a verdict—key limitations that prevent misuse. This is strong behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences long, with the primary purpose in the first sentence and a crucial caveat in the second. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy. Perfectly structured for quick consumption.

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 description covers what the tool does, what input it expects, what output to expect (candidate patterns with recognition text), and a critical limitation (not a verdict). No output schema exists, so this explanation is necessary and sufficient. Sibling tool names add context but the description alone is complete for a prefilter tool.

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 schema already documents both parameters (signals and limit). The description adds context for 'signals' by calling them 'observed behavioural signals' and giving an example query format, but it does not elaborate on 'limit' or return details beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 is a lexical prefilter over the pattern library, using specific verbs like 'returns' and identifying the resource ('pattern library'). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing token overlap rather than comprehension, and the shortlist/verdict caution differentiates it from analytical tools like analyze_behavior.

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 context for use: 'Given observed behavioural signals' and 'treat results as a shortlist to verify, never as a verdict' give practical guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the implied usage is clear enough.

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