instinct

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 effectively describes key behaviors: it's an exact-match lookup (case-sensitive), returns a full record or an error dict if not found, and specifies what fields are included in the return. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers the core operational behavior well.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second explains when to use it, the third clarifies limitations, and the Args/Returns sections provide essential details without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description provides complete context. It explains the purpose, usage guidelines, parameter details, and return behavior (including error handling). The output schema will document the return structure, so the description doesn't need to duplicate that information.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully documents the single parameter 'pattern', explaining it's an 'exact pattern key including its prefix', providing examples ('seq:lint->fix->lint', 'pref:style=black'), and noting it's case-sensitive. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the specific action ('Fetch the full record') and resource ('one pattern by its exact key'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_instincts()' for substring/keyword search and 'list_instincts' for listing patterns. It provides a concrete example of what the tool does beyond just the name.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('typically after suggest() returns a compact entry and you want the full context') and when not to use it ('For substring or keyword search, use search_instincts() instead'). It provides clear alternatives and context for usage.

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