get_top_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add context about sorting (by frequency and recency) and scope (across all tasks), which are useful traits. However, it does not explain what constitutes a 'pattern', how the sorting is computed, or any potential edge cases (e.g., ties). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the purpose and key behavioral attributes. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the core behavior adequately. However, the lack of any comparative guidance among the many pattern-related siblings and the absence of details about the return format leave some gaps for an agent deciding between tools.

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 already fully documents the only parameter 'limit' with its description and default. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gets the most frequently used patterns across all tasks, with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the sorting criterion (frequency and recency), which adds specificity. However, it does not differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like get_trending_patterns or list_patterns.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple pattern-related siblings (e.g., get_trending_patterns, get_pattern_stats), a note about preferring this for overall frequency vs. trending would be valuable. The description implies usage but provides no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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