Catch Recurrence Stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the threshold-based PROMOTE suggestion behavior, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects: the schema's cwd description mentions catches.jsonl is written to, yet the main description does not clarify whether this tool mutates state or only returns analysis.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the output concept, the threshold behavior with a clarifying explanation, and the intended decision use. The most important information is front-loaded and jargon is briefly unpacked.

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?

For a single-parameter stats tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what output to expect and why it matters. It could be more complete by defining the threshold or explicitly stating side effects, but those are minor given the schema and the overall clarity.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single optional cwd parameter, and the schema already explains the working-directory semantics and the catches.jsonl read/write behavior. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed given the schema's completeness.

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 states a specific resource (defect bank) and a specific computation (per-pattern recurrence counts), and explains the output's purpose: suggesting PROMOTE-to-deterministic-check for recurring patterns. It is clear even though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 says to use this tool to decide what to harden next, which gives the agent a clear decision context. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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