Scan repository for deprecated patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, if it modifies the repository, or any side effects. The phrase 'high-signal repo-level patterns' is vague and does not clarify what gets destroyed or what permissions are needed.

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 one efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core verb and domain. However, it could be slightly more structured by adding a second sentence for usage context.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what patterns are found, how output is structured, or how parameters control behavior. A scan tool needs more detail about its scope and format.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must explain parameter meaning, but it does not. 'targets', 'rootPath', 'maxFindings', and 'outputFormat' are not described. The description adds no value beyond the schema structure, leaving the agent to guess semantics.

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 a specific verb 'Find' and resource 'high-signal repo-level patterns' related to upgrades. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on scanning for deprecation patterns rather than generating plans (generate_upgrade_plan) or analyzing projects broadly (analyze_project).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like detect_upgrade_paths or find_breaking_changes could overlap, but no exclusions or context are given. The purpose is implied by 'complicate upgrades' but lacks clear decision support.

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