list_patterns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: a project scope also includes untagged (global) patterns. However, it omits pagination, result size/ordering, or any other operational behavior an agent might need.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the scoping rule following immediately. Every clause earns 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?

For a single optional-parameter, read-style list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential scoping semantics. It is largely sufficient, with return format/pagination the only notable omission.

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 the schema already documents the single 'project' parameter fully. The description merely restates that same semantics, adding no syntax, format, or example beyond the structured field, which is the baseline-3 case.

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+resource ('List patterns') that an agent can map directly to the tool's function. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling listing/query tools such as list_beliefs or query_relevant, leaving the selection ambiguous.

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 explains what the 'project' argument does but never says when to call this tool versus alternatives like query_relevant or list_beliefs. There is no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, only parameter behavior.

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