aplomo_find_existing_patterns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'bounded set' and 'before adding an abstraction' context but does not disclose return format or result behavior, which is acceptable given the annotations.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource while adding the key workflow context.

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 read-only search tool, the annotations cover safety and the description covers scope and timing. There is no output schema, but the tool's role is clear enough that missing return-format details are a minor gap.

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% and the description adds no explicit parameter guidance. The query and limit parameters are inferable from their names and schema constraints, but the description does not explain semantics beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search a bounded set of source files'. It also gives the purpose, 'before adding an abstraction', which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that validate, review, or prepare changes.

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?

It clearly frames when to use this tool: before adding an abstraction. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the temporal condition is enough to route an agent toward this discovery step.

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