find_repeated_operation_sequences

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description does not contradict them. 'Bounded derived evidence' adds a small signal that results are limited or derived, but pagination behavior, data scoping, or input prerequisites are not disclosed.

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 a single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no filler. It is under-specified rather than verbose, but the concision itself is good.

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?

For a tool in a long sibling list with four parameters, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It leaves unclear what artifact_id should refer to, how limit/cursor/minimum_repetitions interact, and in what investigation scenario repeated span signatures are relevant. The output schema covers return shape but not usage context.

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% and the description names none of the four parameters. 'Bounded' only vaguely hints at limit/cursor behavior, while artifact_id and minimum_repetitions receive no semantic explanation, so the description does not adequately compensate for the schema 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 states a concrete action ('Return') and a resource ('repeated span signatures'), so the basic function is present. However, 'bounded derived evidence' is jargon-heavy and does not explain what span signatures represent or how this tool differs from sibling evidence/query tools. It leans on the tool name for disambiguation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_evidence, query_measurements, or the various extract_* tools. No conditions, exclusions, or prerequisite relationships are stated.

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