scan_pattern_libraries

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions 'allowed roots' without explaining what that means, what restrictions apply, or whether the operation is read-only. It does not disclose return behavior, side effects, or dependencies, leaving significant behavioral uncertainty.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without redundancy, successfully earning its place.

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 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and a vague reference to 'allowed roots', the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. It lacks context about parameter behavior, constraints, and expected output, even though an output schema exists.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'root' or 'recursive' parameters at all. It fails to explain how these parameters influence the scan, making it impossible for an agent to understand their semantics from the description.

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 uses the specific verb 'Find' with a clear resource ('standalone DipTrace Pattern Library XML files') and scope ('inside allowed roots'), making it distinct from siblings like scan_component_libraries and scan_diptrace_documents.

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 gives context about scanning pattern library files but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. It implies usage based on the resource type, but does not state exclusions or direct users to sibling tools for components or documents.

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