detect_recurring_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only reveals that it finds patterns across multiple calls with a minimum frequency. It does not disclose behavioral details like how timeframes or confidence thresholds affect results, or if the tool is read-only or has side effects.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and concise, but given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), it is too sparse. More sentences could be added without becoming verbose.

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 tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'patterns' are, how results are returned, or any prerequisites. This leaves many open questions for an AI agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for min_frequency (default 3) but ignores the other three parameters (pattern_types, timeframe, confidence_threshold), leaving their semantics undocumented.

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 finds patterns across multiple calls with a minimum frequency of 3, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like detect_anomalies or aggregate_insights_by_theme, which might also identify 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as detect_anomalies or track_pattern_trends. The description only states what it does without context for selection.

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