search_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Detect' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether results are sorted, how patterns are defined, or whether any memory state is modified. It lacks side-effect information, permission requirements, or return format.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the core purpose. However, it is extremely minimal, bordering on under-specification, which slightly reduces the score from 5.

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 the tool's three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling search tools, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain how patterns are detected, what the output looks like, or when to prefer this over other search tools, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 input schema descriptions cover all three parameters (context_type, pattern_types, min_occurrences) at 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Per the rubric, baseline of 3 applies since schema coverage is high.

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 provides a clear verb 'Detect' and a specific resource 'memory content' with the object 'recurring patterns', which clearly states the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like memory_search or search_semantic, but the focus on patterns is distinct.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_search or search_temporal. The description implies it is for detecting patterns but does not provide exclusions, prerequisites, or context.

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