detect_failure_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose safety and side effects. It states that it 'automatically' detects and returns patterns, suggesting a read-only analysis, but it does not explicitly confirm the absence of side effects or mention data sources, failure conditions, or performance implications. This is moderately transparent but leaves gaps.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and then specifies the return value. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has no output schema, but the description explicitly states the return value: patterns sorted by failure rate with risk assessments and recommendations. For a simple tool with two well-documented optional parameters, this is mostly complete, though it could mention the expected input scope (e.g., task history) or any prerequists.

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%, with both minOccurrences and failureThreshold fully documented including defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond 'high failure rates', so it does not exceed the baseline for well-covered schemas.

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 ('detect') and resource ('patterns with high failure rates') with a clear purpose ('identify risky approaches'). It also describes the output format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_patterns or get_top_patterns by focusing on failure-related risk assessment.

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 usage when trying to identify risky approaches from pattern data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pattern_stats or check_pattern_risk, nor when not to use it. The purpose is clear but guidance is implicit.

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