pattern_scan_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the scan scope (entire file vs section), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about return format, result ordering, performance on large files, or the max_results cap behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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?

A single compact sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded after the core action. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness leaves behavioral gaps that a second clause could have filled.

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 simple three-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description is minimally viable but thin. It covers what the tool does and its scope, yet omits return shape and any guidance for the optional max_results parameter, leaving the agent to infer the rest.

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 file_path, pattern, and max_results are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or wildcard details beyond the schema's 'Pattern with wildcards', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Scan entire file for a pattern') and adds a scope qualifier ('not limited to a section') that implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling pattern_scan. The distinction from the sibling is present but relies on the reader inferring what pattern_scan does.

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 parenthetical '(not limited to a section)' hints at when this tool is preferable over the section-scoped pattern_scan, but never names the alternative or states an explicit condition for choosing one over the other. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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