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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns code plus an inline validation report, has a special interactive flow for app-layouts (asking the user which of 4 layout IDs), and that iconLibrary affects the returned usage note. It does not cover permissions or explicit read-only status, but the 'get' verb implies read-only.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and contains only informative sentences: the pattern list, app-layouts instruction, iconLibrary guidance, and no-argument behavior. It is dense but each sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description clearly explains return values (code + inline validation report) and covers key usage scenarios: no arguments, app-layouts full-page flow, and icon library handling. It provides sufficient context for correct selection and invocation.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a slight nuance with 'rewrite the pattern's icons to' which clarifies the effect, but it mostly restates schema details already present in the input 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 tool retrieves a validated composition example for a common UI pattern, lists specific pattern IDs, and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing validation and the app-layouts sub-flow (e.g., generate_component or validate_component_usage). The verb 'get' plus resource and scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage instructions: call app-layouts first for full pages, pass iconLibrary for correct import source, and call with no arguments to list patterns. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternative tools, but the context is clear and actionable.

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