pattern_get_pattern_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (pattern type -> {count, last_seen}) plus a non-obvious behavioral trait: the prompt_hint for proactive user engagement. It omits permissions, data freshness/staleness, and whether the summary is cached, so the disclosure is partial rather than complete.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, followed by a compact return description. The docstring-style 'Returns: dict:' formatting is slightly mechanical but not wasteful.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description supplies the essential return structure and the prompt_hint semantics, which is enough to call it correctly. Absent annotations, a note on read-only safety or data freshness would have made it fully complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-arg tool 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get cumulative summary of all detected behavior patterns.' It is distinguishable from siblings like pattern_run_pattern_detection and pattern_get_pattern_report by the 'cumulative summary' framing, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated. The mention of a prompt_hint 'for the agent to decide whether to proactively engage the user' hints at the intended use, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing versus pattern_get_pattern_report or pattern_run_pattern_detection.

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