card_builder_list_design_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (design patterns with specific fields) and the filtering option. It lacks details on the return format, pagination, or error handling, but is sufficient for a listing tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No extraneous 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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and that output schema exists, the description covers the essential aspects. It explains what each pattern contains, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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 domain parameter is explained in the description as a filter for HA entity domains, adding meaning beyond the schema's type description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.

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 lists curated UX design patterns for card building, explaining each pattern's content (intent, template, UX rationale, anti-patterns). It distinguishes from siblings like card_builder_get_design_pattern by being a list operation.

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 clear context on using the tool, especially how to filter by domain. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like card_builder_get_design_pattern for retrieving a single pattern, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

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