reai_bre100_high_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that the tool uses a utilization threshold (min_utilization) to filter patterns, linking behavior to the parameter. However, it doesn't disclose return format, ordering, or any side effects — though this appears to be a read-only query tool, and the description doesn't contradict anything.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the standardization-opportunity framing. No wasted words. Could arguably be trimmed, but it's efficient and informative.

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?

With a single optional parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema required (a list tool), the description is reasonably complete. However, the context suggests this tool is part of a family (BRE-100 stats/patterns), and the description could benefit from noting whether this is read-only or how the returned set of patterns is structured (list vs count), especially given there's no output schema to fill that gap.

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%, so the schema fully documents min_utilization with its default. The description adds the semantic framing of 'min_utilization' meaning 'used by 3+ clients', which slightly enriches the param meaning but the schema already covers the core. The description's 'used by 3+ clients' maps directly to the schema's Default: 3.

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+resource ('Get high-value BRE-100 patterns') with a clear scope qualifier ('used by multiple clients'). It distinguishes the tool's purpose by explaining these represent standardization opportunities for FSM solutions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling reai_bre100_stats tool, which is likely a close relative.

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 explains that the tool surfaces patterns used by multiple clients and positions them as standardization opportunities, which implies when to use it (when needing high-value, cross-client patterns). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools like reai_bre100_stats for different BRE-100 queries.

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