Retrieve a single operational heuristic by id (e.g., 'OH::geoffrey-pattern'). Returns the full entry: principle, framework mapping, evidence sources from production deployment, design patterns, anti-patterns, and discovery narrative.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only retrieval but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or error behaviors. The description is adequate but not fully transparent.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action, includes an example, and lists return contents. No unnecessary 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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure. It lacks mention of error handling or id validation, but for a simple retrieval tool it is mostly complete.
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 covers the 'id' parameter with only type and maxLength. The description adds a concrete example ('OH::geoffrey-pattern') and clarifies that it returns the full entry, significantly aiding correct invocation.
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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'operational heuristic by id', with an example ID format. It lists the return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_operational_heuristics'.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that 'list_operational_heuristics' is for retrieving multiple heuristics, or indicate prerequisites or excluded scenarios.
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.
