store_codebase_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Store' implies a write operation, but the description doesn't address permissions, persistence, side effects, rate limits, or what 'future reference' entails. It lacks critical behavioral details for a tool with 6 parameters.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 2 required), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't address parameter meanings, usage context, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for effective tool invocation.

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%, meaning none of the 6 parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't explain any parameters, such as what 'pattern_type' or 'code_snippet' should contain, or how 'tags' should be formatted. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Store a codebase pattern for future reference', which provides a basic verb+resource combination ('store' + 'codebase pattern'). However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'codebase pattern' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'store_memory' or 'create_collection', making it somewhat vague.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'store_memory' and 'create_collection' that might handle similar data, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool's usage.

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