pattern_find_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description adds important behavioral details: case-insensitivity and return format ({index, name} or null). It does not disclose potential side effects (none expected) or error handling, but the simplicity of the operation makes this acceptable.

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?

One sentence that efficiently states action, input constraints, and output. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers all essential aspects: operation, input requirement, return type, and case-sensitivity. It is self-sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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%, but the tool description itself explains the 'name' parameter by stating the tool finds by exact name. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema. The single required parameter is well-contextualized.

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 uses a specific verb 'Find' and identifies the resource 'pattern by exact name' including case-insensitivity and return format. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like pattern_list which lists all patterns, and pattern_select which selects by index.

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 use when you have an exact name, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pattern_list or pattern_count. No guidance on when not to use it.

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