get_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It mentions 'typical' and 'weekday vs. weekend' which indicates a summarized/aggregated output, but does not explain how the patterns are computed, what time range is covered, or what the response format looks like. It adds some context but not comprehensive behavioral details.

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, well-front-loaded sentence that packs the core purpose and differentiation into 17 words. No filler or redundant information; every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool and no output schema, the description could be more explicit about what the returned data looks like (e.g., a table of hours and bike availability values). The core concept is clear, but the absence of any return-format hint leaves some gaps for an AI agent invoking 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?

The schema already documents stationId at 100% coverage. The description adds minimal value by restating 'single station' but does not provide additional meaning such as station ID format or examples. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a specific action ('Get weekday vs. weekend hourly occupancy patterns') and resource ('for a single station'), with a concrete scope ('typical bike availability by hour'). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_history (raw history) and get_heatmap (likely aggregated heatmap) by specifying the pattern nature.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need typical hourly patterns for a single station) but provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer get_history or get_heatmap instead, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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