find_existing_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no return shape, no result limits, no indication of whether it searches a repo, a knowledge base, or both, and no statement of what 'NSTOK' covers. 'Search' weakly implies a read-only operation, but that is the only behavioral signal.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the verb first. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than deliberately tight.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key questions unanswered: what counts as a 'pattern', how results are returned, and how this differs from search_knowledge. Two optional parameters mean invocation is not ambiguous, but the discovery context is thin.

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 100%, covering both 'query' (with examples like 'reuse', 'template', 'drizzle', 'git') and 'category', so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no query syntax, category values, or matching semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Search') and a concrete resource set ('established architectural patterns, code conventions, and guidelines') scoped to 'NSTOK'. An agent can tell it is a search/lookup tool for conventions. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'search_knowledge', which plausibly retrieves overlapping content, and 'NSTOK' is never defined.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus search_knowledge, find_features, or find_db_entities, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer timing from the tool name alone.

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