pattern_get_pattern_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the return shape (report path and Markdown content), which implies a file is written to disk, but it never states that side effect explicitly, nor whether detection is triggered, whether output is cached, or whether the call is read-only.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first line, then Args and Returns blocks. There is minor docstring boilerplate (empty type hints, 'dict:' label) that adds nothing, but nothing is wasted overall.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does cover the return payload, which is helpful. It stops short of describing what the report actually contains, how long a 'weekly' window is anchored to, or where the file path points — all decisions the caller might care about.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of meaning for the single parameter, and it fully compensates by enumerating the two valid values ('weekly' or 'monthly') and naming the default. Only the enum constraint is left to the schema's bare string type.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate a behavior pattern report') plus the output format (Markdown). It is distinguishable from pattern_get_pattern_summary only by the word 'report', but the sibling tools themselves are not referenced, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 guidance on when to use this versus pattern_run_pattern_detection or pattern_get_pattern_summary, and no stated prerequisite that pattern detection must have run first. The agent must infer the workflow from the sibling list alone.

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