suggest_file_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose. It does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or what the tool returns (despite having an output schema).

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 extremely concise (one sentence) with no wasted text, but it is underspecified given the complexity of four parameters and an output schema. Conciseness is positive but sacrifices necessary detail.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with multiple parameters and an output schema. It lacks context about the tool's role in the documentation workflow (e.g., suggesting patterns for Doxygen configuration), making it hard for an agent to select appropriately.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the parameters. For example, 'project_path', 'primary_language', 'include_tests' are not explained; the description only says 'file patterns' without linking to parameters.

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 'Suggest appropriate file patterns for a project' states a clear verb and resource, but it is vague about what 'file patterns' means and lacks differentiation from sibling tools such as 'scan_project' or 'generate_documentation'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_project' or 'validate_documentation'. The description gives no usage context or exclusions.

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