get_trending_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that 'trending' is based on 'most used in recent days', which adds meaning beyond the name. However, it doesn't state whether this is strictly read-only, or any other side effects, though the 'get' prefix suggests a read operation.

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, compact sentence that starts with the action verb 'Get' and provides the essential information without any filler. It is perfectly sized.

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 retrieval tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives the purpose, the time-based definition of 'trending', and a practical use case. It lacks an explicit statement about return format, but the description is otherwise sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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%, with both 'days' and 'limit' each having descriptions and defaults in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'trending patterns' and defines the meaning as 'most used in recent days'. This clearly states the tool's function, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from the similar sibling tool 'get_top_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?

Provides clear context by noting it's 'useful for identifying current development patterns', which implies the appropriate use case. However, it doesn't mention exclusions or contrast with alternatives like get_top_patterns or list_patterns.

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