Return outgoing adjacencies for a pattern. explicit_cross_references are author-asserted (each pattern's cross_references YAML field). inferred_adjacent (when include_inferred=true) currently returns same-suite siblings only — it does not do semantic similarity. Treat inferred entries as 'neighbours worth scanning,' not as endorsed dependencies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| include_inferred | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses that inferred entries are limited to same-suite siblings and lack semantic similarity, clarifying behavior beyond obvious read nature.
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 efficient sentences front-loaded with purpose, each earning its place with no redundant text.
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?
Lacks output format details (e.g., whether results are IDs or objects) and does not mention prerequisites or pagination, leaving some gaps for a tool with no output schema.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the meaning of include_inferred and the nature of explicit_cross_references, adding significant context not present in 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 it returns outgoing adjacencies for a pattern, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes two types (explicit and inferred), differentiating from sibling tools like get_reverse_references.
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 nuanced guidance on interpreting inferred entries as 'neighbours worth scanning' and not endorsed dependencies, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like get_reverse_references.
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 distinct purpose: finding patterns, cross-references, operational heuristics, requirements, listing, searching, and review stats. Overlap is minimal and well-differentiated by input parameters.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, e.g., find_patterns_for_task, list_requirements, resolve_id. No mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
12 tools cover core operations (list, get, search, resolve, review) for the framework domain without bloat. Each tool serves a clear, non-redundant purpose.
Covers most needed operations for exploring the framework: listing suites, searching patterns, getting details, cross-references, review stats. Lacks a direct 'list all patterns' tool, but list_requirements and search_patterns partially fill that gap.
