get_anti_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description details the return structure (where, why, what to do, diagnostic tell) and provides examples, effectively disclosing the tool's read-only lookup behavior.

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?

Every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, return structure, examples, and usage. No fluff, well-organized, and front-loaded with the core action.

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 return fields. Parameters are fully covered. Minor gap: no mention of permissions or authentication, but this is not critical for a lookup tool.

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 schema already describes both parameters well. The description adds value with example queries, but this is not essential 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 explicitly states the tool looks up anti-patterns from a specific catalogue, provides examples of anti-pattern names, and implicitly distinguishes from siblings focused on regulations and controls.

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 clearly states when to use the tool—'when reviewing an architecture description or codebase' and 'when you need to name a problem precisely'—but does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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