Topology Index

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is read-only and idempotent, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral context by stating the result is 'exactly as HTTP serves it' and that private tenant routes are excluded, which clarifies scope and fidelity beyond what annotations convey.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the key scope limitation is stated concisely in the second.

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 simple one-parameter fetch tool, the description covers what is returned, the accepted input forms, and the access boundary. Since the return format is explicitly stated as a Markdown document and the input schema is fully documented, the agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including a clear description and examples. The tool description reiterates the path/URL distinction and adds a concrete example, but it does not materially extend the meaning beyond the 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's function: it returns the Markdown document of a public page from a root-relative path or absolute URL. It is specific about the resource and operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_pattern, which may also fetch a specific document.

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 gives clear context about what can be fetched ('any public page') and notes a limitation ('Private tenant routes are not reachable here'). However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_pattern or search, leaving that inference to the agent.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the page reports 'whether this deployment can execute it', which is a useful runtime capability check.

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?

A single dense sentence efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, resource path, and content scope. No redundant phrasing or filler; every clause contributes essential information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return content and the key deployment-execution flag. It could be more complete by explicitly naming alternatives for usage routing, but that falls under usage guidelines.

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 100% and the schema already describes the pattern parameter with examples. The description's mention of 'identifier or alias' closely mirrors the schema, adding little new semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves a single pattern page, identifies the resource format (/patterns/{pattern}.md), and lists the page's content (definition, aliases, fit hypotheses, failure modes, sources, deployability). This clearly distinguishes it from listing or searching tools.

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 implies it is for fetching a specific pattern by identifier or alias, but it does not explicitly contrast this with siblings like list_patterns or search. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative suggestions are provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by revealing that the result is a documentation page/section rather than a structured list, and that family restricts to only that family's section of the same page. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences and about 20 words, with the core resource identified first and the family-filtering behavior immediately after. Every phrase earns its place; there is no repetition or filler.

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 low complexity, one optional parameter, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the source page and the effect of the family parameter, though it does not describe the return format beyond calling it a page; this is a minor gap for a simple read-only listing tool.

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 only parameter, family, is fully documented in the schema with an enum and a description ('Restrict the list to one pattern family'). The description's 'only that family's section of the same page' adds slight nuance but mostly restates what the schema already communicates, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as exposing the pattern catalogue and decision guide at /patterns/index.md, with optional family-based filtering. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like get_pattern or search, but the resource and scope are specific enough for an agent to understand what it does.

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 implies the tool should be used when the agent needs the pattern catalogue or a family-specific section of it. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer siblings such as get_pattern for a single pattern or search for targeted retrieval.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by warning that the documents are unvalidated and unsigned, alerting the agent to potential quality or trust issues. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentence, front-loads the resource path, and includes relevant caveats without fluff. However, the colon-heavy structure and parenthetical 'to copy and register privately' make the sentence slightly less direct than a clean 'Lists...' phrasing.

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 no output schema, the description does not clarify the return format (e.g., list of file names, paths, or contents). It explains the source and nature of the items, but an agent may still be unsure what data to expect from the index listing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none are needed; the tool takes no input.

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 names the resource explicitly ('starter formation index (/starters/index.md)') and states the content type (unvalidated, unsigned FORMATION.md documents). It conveys that the tool lists starter formations, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_patterns tool.

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 phrase 'to copy and register privately' implies a use case (obtaining starter templates for private registration), but the description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_patterns or search. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds valuable behavior: a result limit of 10, the path to fetch, and the limitation of text-only matching with no ranking. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent actionable expectations about output and semantics.

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?

Two tight sentences. The first states the core function and output, the second clarifies matching behavior and ranking. No filler, and the key information is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return structure. It covers the scope of search, the result limit, the path semantics, and the matching behavior. It also implicitly explains how to use the results (pass path to fetch). This is complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100% and the query parameter is well described in the schema. The description adds context by specifying what domains are searched (patterns, research records, etc.) and clarifies that matching is textual, not semantic. This enriches the meaning of the query parameter beyond the schema's basic example.

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 performs keyword search over specific content types (pattern names, aliases, summaries, research records, starter formations, API guides) and returns results with a path for fetch. It also explicitly notes it matches text only and never ranks patterns, distinguishing it from any ranking-based or listing tools. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 implies usage: it is for finding content by keyword, and the mention of 'path to pass to fetch' signals it as a precursor to fetching specific pages. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_patterns or get_pattern, nor state when not to use it. The context is clear but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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