ai_analyze_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It mentions 'AI analysis' but doesn't disclose traits like processing time, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'improvement suggestions' entail. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity and no structured safety hints.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get AI analysis of the pattern') and lists key components. It's appropriately sized with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 (AI-based analysis with multiple outputs like style detection and suggestions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints, making it insufficient for reliable agent use.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly avoids redundancy. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools, as no compensation is required.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get AI analysis') and resources ('pattern'), detailing what it analyzes (style detection, complexity assessment, improvement suggestions). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ai_explain_pattern' (likely explanation-focused) and 'analyze' (generic), but doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for pattern analysis, but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusions relative to siblings like 'analyze' or 'ai_explain_pattern', leaving the agent to infer context.

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