detect_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It hints at a read-only analysis ('detect patterns') but does not confirm side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation is destructive. The token-based nature is mentioned but not elaborated.

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, which is very concise but may be under-specified. It lacks crucial information such as the output format or when to use it, making it insufficient for adequate understanding despite its brevity.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of patterns, counts). It fails to do so. The context of many sibling tools heightens the need for differentiation, which is missing. The description is incomplete for effective use.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely echoes 'entity type' without clarifying formats or the default for minOccurrences (which the schema provides). 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 action ('detect patterns') and the target resource ('observations of a given entity type'), using the specific verb 'detect' and the resource 'token-based patterns across observations'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'detect_contradictions' and 'find_duplicates' by specifying 'recurring token-based patterns'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like semantic search or duplicate detection. There are no exclusion criteria or examples of typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit help.

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