rails_get_job_pattern

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds useful context that is not in the annotations: the directories scanned and the detail-scaling behavior (summary vs. full), which helps the agent reason about result depth. It stops short of noting cost or output-size implications for large codebases.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource scope, followed by usage triggers and parameter behavior in a compact three-part flow. Every sentence carries weight, though the per-parameter guidance mildly duplicates the schema text.

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 two-parameter, read-only, zero-required analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers what is scanned, when to invoke it, and how detail levels work. Because there is no output schema, a bit more about the shape of the returned summary would close the remaining gap.

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 both parameters are already fully documented, including the detail enum's three levels. The description mostly restates the omit-to-list-all behavior already present in the schema and slightly conflates 'specify job' with 'full detail', adding minimal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (analyze) and a precise resource scope (app/jobs/, app/workers/, app/sidekiq/) along with the dimensions it covers: queues, retries, perform signatures, guards, and downstream calls. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rails_get_service_pattern or rails_get_callbacks, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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 'Use when:' clause names three concrete triggers (understanding job infrastructure, adding a new job, tracing async workflows), which is clear positive guidance. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, so it falls short of a 5.

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