load_pattern

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the tool loads and returns code, but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires certain permissions. This lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about safety.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the purpose and one line for the parameter. Information is front-loaded and every word is necessary.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, presence of output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, the parameter's format, and the return value. Minor omissions like error handling or prerequisites are acceptable for such a straightforward operation.

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 input schema has one parameter 'path' with only type and title. The description adds significant meaning by specifying it is a 'relative path from the patterns root' and provides a clear example. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 action ('Load a saved pattern') and the resource ('from the library'), and specifies the outcome ('returning its code'). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_patterns, save_pattern, and load_song.

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 over siblings. The description implies use when you need to retrieve a saved pattern, but does not mention cases where you might want to list patterns or save a new one, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.