get_patternThe complete prevention pattern for a slug: the pattern, when to use it, and step-by-step instructions as markdown, plus the friction records it protects against.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Pattern slug, e.g. "async-continuation" (from list_patterns). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, specifying that the tool returns markdown instructions and friction records. There is no contradiction between description and 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key information without any extraneous content. Every part of the sentence adds value.
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 single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (pattern, usage instructions, friction records). It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and output.
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 parameter 'slug' is well-described in the schema with an example. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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 states the tool retrieves a complete prevention pattern for a slug, including the pattern, usage instructions, and associated friction records. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_patterns which only list patterns.
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 when to use (after listing patterns) but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The context from sibling tools suggests usage, but the description itself lacks direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: overview, specific record, pattern retrieval, listing, error lookup, and search. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent 'verb_noun' pattern (e.g., get_current_drift, list_frictions, lookup_error), with clear action and object.
Seven tools cover the domain comprehensively without being excessive. Each tool serves a specific need for querying the friction index.
The tool set provides complete read access to the friction index: overview, detailed records, patterns, listings with filters, error lookup, and full-text search. No obvious gaps for a read-only register.