List curated design patterns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Reads the module-level DESIGN_PATTERNS constant; makes no call to Home Assistant,' which is useful extra context about the source and lack of external calls, though it doesn't discuss pagination or rate limits (not applicable for a static list).

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?

Information is front-loaded: what it lists, then where data comes from, then when to use, then return structure. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value; no unnecessary repetition.

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 is a simple read-only list with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, source, usage distinction, and return shape. It doesn't need to explain the output schema further, but it could omit the return field details since an output schema exists.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single domain parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given high 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (curated UX design patterns), and clarifies the unique output shape: each pattern pairs a recipe recommendation with reasoning. Unlike siblings such as card_builder_list_cards or card_builder_list_block_types, the description makes clear this returns design patterns with UX notes and template recommendations.

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 'Use when: browsing available design patterns before picking one by hand, rather than letting card_builder_design_for_intent score them.' This directly contrasts with the sibling design_for_intent tool and gives the condition for choosing this list over automated scoring.

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