designer_get_anti_patterns

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Does not explain if all anti-patterns are returned when no filters are applied, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. Lacks crucial behavioral context for safe invocation.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence that front-loads the core action and filtering options. Every word is informative; no redundancy.

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 simple parameter set (2 optional enums) and no output schema, the description covers the input shape adequately. However, missing behavioral transparency reduces completeness for an agent that must invoke safely.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description echoes the filtering purpose. However, adds no additional semantic nuance beyond 'filtered by category and/or industry' – baseline score 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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves design anti-patterns and specifies two filtering dimensions (category and industry). Distinguishes from domain-specific anti-pattern tools in siblings (e.g., golang_get_antipatterns, product_manager_get_anti_patterns).

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?

Implies usage when design anti-patterns are needed, but provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., marketing_get_anti_patterns). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions stated.

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