pattern_detect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool analyzes 'all tracked entities' and returns 'detected signals with entity context,' which is useful but does not detail output format, pagination, or potential performance implications. This is similar to the reference example where annotations carry the main burden.

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, front-loaded with the most important usage trigger, and ends with a concise statement of behavior and output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy 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?

Given the low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It covers when to use, what it does, and what it returns. The schema covers parameter details, and annotations cover safety.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'scope' parameter, including its options ('recent', 'deep', or a specific theme). The description does not add further parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: it analyzes patterns across tracked entities and returns detected signals with entity context. It also explicitly lists trigger conditions (patterns, recurring blockers, theme convergence, avoidance signals), distinguishing it from generic file grepping or log reading.

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 opens with explicit 'Call this when...' guidance listing specific user intents that should trigger this tool, and explicitly says to use it 'instead of grepping git logs or reading files to find trends.' This clearly communicates when to use it versus the alternative manual approaches.

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