list_patternsAll reusable build patterns that prevent whole classes of Copilot Studio friction before they happen (e.g. async continuation for the 100-second flow limit), each with its problem class and related records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about pattern categories but does not disclose additional behavioral traits 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 well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and content, with no fluff.
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 zero parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description fully explains what the tool returns (patterns with problem class and related records) and its read-only nature.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the description adds no parameter info, which is unnecessary.
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 lists 'reusable build patterns that prevent whole classes of Copilot Studio friction'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_frictions' and 'get_pattern' by focusing on preventive patterns with problem class and related records.
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 when seeking preventive patterns and mentions their structure, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools.
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.