marketing_get_anti_patterns

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists included content and usage, but does not disclose behavior like return format, safety, or side effects. Since it is a read-only reference tool, the lack of destructive behavior disclosure is acceptable, but more details on output structure would improve transparency.

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?

Two sentences: first lists the anti-patterns, second states usage. Every word adds value. Highly concise and front-loaded with key information. No wasted space.

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 no output schema, the description explains the tool's output (list of anti-patterns with fixes) and usage context. It is complete for a simple reference tool, though it could specify the return format (e.g., list of objects). Sibling tools are similar in depth.

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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. However, it compensates by listing the content categories (feature-dumping, etc.) that the tool returns, giving context beyond the empty 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 provides 'Marketing red flags with fixes' and lists specific anti-patterns (e.g., 'feature-dumping', 'we-we copy'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'designer_get_anti_patterns' or 'product_manager_get_anti_patterns' by focusing on marketing domain. The verb 'get' is appropriate for a reference list.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to QA any marketing output before shipping.' This gives a clear when-to-use. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling list implies other marketing tools for persuasion, voice, etc. Minor gap for exclusions, but sufficient for most agents.

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