check_pattern_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It conveys that the operation is a read-only check and provides immediate feedback, but it does not disclose error handling, output format, or any potential side effects, leaving some behaviors implicit.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every word 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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose and usage context, but since there is no output schema, it does not explain what the risk assessment output looks like or how to interpret it. The description is adequate but leaves room for the agent to wonder what exactly will be returned.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter 'pattern' is clearly described as 'the pattern name to check for risk'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline without exceeding 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 the tool checks a specific pattern for failure history and provides a risk assessment. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('pattern'), and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like list_patterns or get_pattern_stats, which serve different functions.

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 phrase 'before using it' gives clear temporal context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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