reai_search_bre100

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'search' by listing the specific attributes of each pattern (business process, FSM classification, navigation path, etc.), giving the agent a clear idea of what to expect in results. It also notes the registry scale (617+ patterns from 11 client implementations), which adds useful context.

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 two sentences long. The first is a clear action statement, and the second is a compact list of result fields. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description effectively communicates the result structure by enumerating the pattern fields. It also provides context about the registry's size and origin. Combined with the schema's parameter documentation, the description is self-sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (query, limit, threshold), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline of 3 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?

The description opens with a specific action and resource: 'Search the BRE-100 pattern registry for report migration patterns.' It further enumerates the exact fields contained in each pattern, fully clarifying what the tool returns. The inclusion of 'BRE-100' in the name and description clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like reai_search_v10v11.

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 indicates the intended use case: searching the BRE-100 pattern registry. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or alternative tools, but the strong resource specification provides clear context for when this should be used.

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