instinct

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation ('Read-only — the source file is not modified'), describes what gets extracted (patterns, confidence counts, explain text), and mentions validation failures ('lines that looked pattern-like but failed validation'). It doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs, but provides substantial operational 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 efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose, scanning behavior, usage guidelines, parameters, and return values. Every sentence earns its place by adding specific value, with no redundant information. The formatting with bullet points enhances readability without wasting space.

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 complexity (parsing specialized files with pattern matching), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, behavioral constraints, parameter meaning, and the output schema details the return structure, making the description fully adequate for the agent's needs.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'source' is a 'Path to the CLAUDE.md file' and clarifies it's read-only. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation, providing essential context the schema alone doesn't offer.

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 ('Parse... and ingest'), resource ('CLAUDE.md file'), and scope ('backtick-wrapped patterns'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'import_patterns' by specifying it processes a specific file format with instinct convention patterns.

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 provides when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to bootstrap a fresh instinct store from an existing project's CLAUDE.md, or to sync rules authored by hand.' This gives clear context for two specific use cases, helping the agent choose this over alternatives like 'import_patterns' or 'inject_claude_md'.

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