scan_and_extract_patterns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, making the safety profile clear. The description adds value by detailing how the tool behaves in different modes (single-segment vs. directory scanning) and how parameters affect scanning behavior, without contradicting 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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then delivers precise usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, efficiently packing information without being verbose.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, multiple modes, integration with memory system), the description covers essential usage contexts well. However, it does not describe the output format or what constitutes a 'pattern', which would be helpful since there is no output schema. Still, it is largely complete for an experienced agent.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description enriches this by explaining the relationship between 'project_root' and 'directory_path', best practices, and which parameters to use in which scenario, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: extracting reusable patterns from code snippets, single files, or entire directories, with the intent to potentially persist them into the memory system. It uses a specific verb ('scan and extract') and resource ('patterns from code'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'memorize_asset' and 'read_memory_asset' which handle direct memory 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (when needing to extract patterns for possible memorization) and how to parameterize it for directory scanning: recommending to pass 'project_root' as absolute and 'directory_path' as relative, with a warning against semi-relative paths. It also implies when not to use certain parameter combinations.

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