get_pattern_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the type of data returned (frequency, success rate, usage timeline), which is good. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if the pattern doesn't exist) or any other behavioral nuances. It is a read operation and the description is reasonably transparent for that.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the action and core content. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the purpose and the key output components. It does not explain the full return shape, but for a basic stats-retrieval tool, the description is largely sufficient. A slightly higher score would require more detail on response format or edge cases.

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%, as the parameter 'pattern' is fully described as 'The pattern name to get statistics for'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: to get detailed statistics for a specific pattern, and lists the specific metrics included (frequency, success rate, usage timeline). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_top_patterns or get_trending_patterns, which operate on pattern sets rather than a single named pattern.

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: use when you need statistics for a specific pattern. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. The context is clear but not explicitly differentiated.

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