Return patterns that reference the given pattern_id in their cross_references. Complement to get_cross_references (outgoing); this shows incoming. Use to find all consumers of a given pattern.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'Return patterns' implying read-only, but doesn't disclose auth needs, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate for a simple read tool but lacks depth.
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 sentences with zero waste: first states action, second gives context. Perfectly sized and front-loaded with key info.
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?
No output schema, so description should explain return format. It says 'Return patterns' but doesn't specify structure of returned data (e.g., single object, list, fields). Adequate for basic use but incomplete.
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 0%, so description must compensate. It maps parameter 'id' to 'pattern_id', adding domain meaning. However, no format, constraints, or error handling details beyond schema's maxLength.
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 returns patterns referencing a given pattern_id, using the verb 'Return' with specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling get_cross_references by noting outgoing vs incoming.
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?
Explicitly says 'Complement to get_cross_references (outgoing); this shows incoming' and 'Use to find all consumers of a given pattern', providing clear when-to-use and alternative.
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.
