analyze_title_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It explains the analytical behavior and output (templates), but does not define 'most successful', mention data sources, side effects, or limitations. The verb 'analisa' implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 primary action, and each clause adds relevant detail. It is concise and well-structured, with no redundant information.

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 output schema, the description needs to explain return value structure, but it only vaguely mentions returning templates. It does not specify the format, count, or how 'successful' is measured, leaving gaps for an agent to know exactly what to expect from the 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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions for niche, regionCode, and videoCount. It does not clarify parameter usage or constraints beyond what is already in the schema.

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 analyzes structural patterns of successful video titles in a niche, identifies recurring formulas (number, question, how-to, contrast, urgency), and returns dominating templates. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like keyword stats or tag suggestions.

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 when to use it: when needing to understand title patterns in a niche. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention related tools like suggest_hook_angles, so it falls short of explicit when/not guidance but is still clear enough.

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