run_mining

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool extracts patterns and updates a table with occurrence counts, and notes project-scoping. However, it does not mention side effects like potential performance impact or whether prior data is cleared, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 concise with three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the main action, detailing outputs, and clarifying scope. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (signal indicates yes), the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers the core functionality and scope, though it could mention prerequisites or frequency constraints for a more complete picture.

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 schema covers the only parameter (hours) with full description. The description adds no extra semantics for the parameter beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it runs pattern mining on recent output logs, extracting specific pattern types (imports, facts, commands, code) and updating the mined_patterns table. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mining_status by detailing the extraction and update operations.

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 mentions that mining is project-scoped and processes recent logs, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions for use or exclusion criteria. Some context is implied but lacks direct guidance.

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