find_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as requiring a search string and having different detection modes. However, it does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits, which are not necessarily critical for this non-destructive tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core purpose, followed by necessary details. Every sentence is substantive, 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?

Given no output schema, the description could inform the agent about the return format or what kind of results to expect. It sufficiently covers parameters and purpose but lacks completeness regarding output, which is a gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool.

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%, providing base descriptions. The description adds value by giving concrete examples for 'pattern' and explaining each enum value for 'type', aiding interpretation beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Find architectural patterns or violations in code.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on detection of patterns/violations like circular dependencies, unused files, etc.

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 explains when to use the tool by specifying required 'pattern' and optional 'type' with enumerated detection modes. Although it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, the examples and mode descriptions provide clear context for appropriate usage.

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