Query the pattern graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral nuance of traversing contextual candidates and applying filters, plus the bounded nature of results. It does not describe output shape or pagination, but it does not contradict 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core functionality and filters, and the second gives clear usage guidance. Every sentence 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?

Without an output schema, the description should at least sketch what the tool returns, but it only describes the traversal behavior. The optional parameters and their relationships are left ambiguous, so an agent may not know whether to provide text, seedPatterns, or just rely on defaults. Annotations provide safety context but not enough for a complete call.

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 needs to compensate. It only references 'layer and cost filters', which maps to `layers` and `maxAdoptionCost`, and hints at `seedPatterns` via the phrase 'around a problem or seed'. The `text`, `limit`, and exact role of `seedPatterns` remain unexplained, leaving a significant gap for a tool with five parameters.

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 identifies a specific action ('traverse contextual candidates and explicit pattern relationships') and scopes it with layer and cost filters. It also clarifies the intended use case ('bounded discovery around a problem or seed'), which distinguishes it from a broad catalog dump. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but its purpose is still clear.

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 description gives a clear 'when to use' directive: bounded discovery around a problem or seed. It also provides a 'when not to use' warning: not to dump the entire catalog. However, it does not name any sibling alternatives or explain how this tool differs from them, so it stops short of a 5.

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