Detect pattern misuse

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds that the audit covers existing and proposed patterns and surfaces hidden costs and simpler alternatives. 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, both earning their place: the first defines the audit scope and criteria, the second gives usage timing and an exclusion. Information is front-loaded with the action verb.

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 rich nested `case` schema and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what `case` should contain or what kind of report to expect. The rich property names partially compensate, making this a minimum-viable level rather than a complete definition.

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?

With 0% top-level schema coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only maps to patternsInUse via 'patterns already used or proposed' and says nothing about the required `case` object or its role as the design context. This leaves a significant gap.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Audit' and a target ('patterns already used or proposed'), then lists the concrete evaluation dimensions: cargo-cult risk, missing forces, hidden costs, and simpler alternatives. It explicitly distances itself from a generic pattern search, which separates it from siblings like query_pattern_graph.

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?

'Use during design or code review, not as a generic pattern search' gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name specific sibling alternatives, so it falls just short of the full 5.

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