pattern_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions 'extraction with context' but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what the return format is, default behavior, or limitations, which is a significant gap for a tool with no 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?

The description is two short sentences, with the first stating the core function and the second listing use cases. It is front-loaded and contains no 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?

The tool has a moderately complex schema with nested objects and no output schema, so the description should explain expected return values, defaults, and operational context. The terse summary leaves the agent to infer critical behavior from the schema alone.

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 description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema. With schema description coverage at 50%, the description should compensate for undocumented parameters, but it does not mention patterns, scope, options, or vaultId at all.

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 uses a specific verb ('extraction') and resource ('pattern') with 'Regex' to define what the tool does. The use cases (data mining, format analysis, content auditing) clarify the intended purpose, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling search tools such as 'search' or 'complex_search'.

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 phrase 'Use for...' gives some context on when to use the tool, but it lacks explicit exclusion or comparison with alternative tools. Given the presence of numerous sibling search and extraction tools, missing selection guidance leaves usage somewhat ambiguous.

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