search_wsqlite_pattern

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 only indicates a 'search' action, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state side effects, result ordering, or any limitations. There is no information about authentication, rate limits, or what qualifies as a 'pattern,' leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and clearly communicates the core purpose. Every word contributes value, making it an appropriate length for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool's simplicity, one required parameter, and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not cover usage alternatives or parameter details, and relies heavily on the tool's name and sibling context. It is adequate but leaves noticeable gaps in guidance for an AI agent.

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 provides a single 'query' parameter with no description, giving 0% coverage. The description implies that 'query' is the search term for patterns, which adds some meaning beyond the schema, but it does not clarify expected format, matching behavior, or any constraints. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema documentation, so the parameter semantics remain mostly inferred.

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 verb 'Search' and specifies the resource: 'production-ready SQLite patterns in official catalog.' This is distinct from sibling tools like validate_model_schema or generate_migration_from_models, which focus on different actions and entities. The scope is unambiguous.

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 implies its usage for searching SQLite patterns but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools or conditions, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit. This meets the 'implied usage' level, not the 'clear context' level.

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