Compare pattern options

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=true, idempotent=true, non-destructive), so the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: it discloses that the tool may deliberately return no winner when evidence is insufficient, and that its output states the forces that would make each option preferable. This is substantive behavioral context, not a restatement of annotations. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the critical behavioral nuance about insufficient evidence and force-based output. Every clause earns its place.

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 is moderately complex (large nested case schema, no output schema), and the description covers the essential outcome behavior: when no winner is returned and what the output expresses (preferring forces). However, it does not describe the output structure of a comparison result or how the many case fields are weighted, which leaves an agent guessing about the return format and the comparison criteria.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning by clarifying 'patterns' are named patterns limited to 2-6 (matching schema minItems/maxItems) and that 'case' is exactly one concrete case. However, the case object is large and heavily nested with 16+ subfields, and the description provides no guidance on which fields matter or how they feed the comparison. The schema's self-descriptive property names and enums carry most of the weight.

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: 'Compare two to six named patterns against one concrete case.' The scope is precise and the action is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like detect_pattern_misuse (detection) and stress_test_pattern_decision (stress-testing a single decision). No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Establishes a clear usage context: comparing a bounded set of patterns against a single concrete case. The 'two to six' constraint and 'one concrete case' framing distinguish it from sibling tools implicitly, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it.

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