detect_patterns

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

No annotations provided, so description should disclose behavior. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, performance implications, or required permissions. For a detection tool, this is a notable gap.

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?

Description is one sentence long, listing patterns and languages. It is concise but lacks structure; parameter details could be included in bullet points or separate sentences.

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?

With 5 parameters and no param descriptions, the description is incomplete. Output schema exists but is not referenced. The agent lacks critical information to use the tool effectively.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and description fails to explain any of the 5 parameters (file, directory, output, depth, json). The agent cannot infer how to use these parameters from the current description.

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?

Description clearly states the tool detects design patterns in source code, lists specific patterns (Singleton, Factory, etc.) and supported languages (Python, JavaScript, etc.). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which cover config, workflow, scraping, etc.

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 vs alternatives. However, since sibling tools are unrelated, confusion is minimal. Missing prerequisites or typical use cases (e.g., 'use on codebases to identify architectural patterns').

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