otp_get_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits: is it read-only? Does it require authentication? Are there rate limits? The description only states the purpose, leaving the agent to assume safety without confirmation.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the verb and resource. No fluff. However, the metaphor might be slightly vague, but overall efficient.

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?

With no required parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is nearly adequate. But it lacks return value description (e.g., 'returns a list of patterns') and behavioral context, which are needed for full completeness.

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 50% (topic has description, limit does not). The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what is in the schema. For limit, it does not clarify what it limits (e.g., number of patterns returned). Prevents the agent from understanding parameter behavior without additional context.

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 verb 'surface' and the resource 'convergent patterns across OTP organizations', with a helpful metaphor ('the everyone is solving this the same way signal'). This distinguishes it from siblings like otp_search_best_practices, which likely searches for individual practices rather than 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like otp_search_best_practices or otp_sample_kpis. The description implies use for discovering consensus patterns but does not provide when-not-to-use or substitute tools.

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