Recommend a HotPocket pattern

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is known safe. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning 'determinism caveats', which alerts the agent to important considerations beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. It is front-loaded with the key action and resources, with no extraneous information. Every part earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists (to define return structure), the description adequately covers the input (plain-English use-case) and the content of the recommendation (node count, state model, etc.). It is complete for a pattern recommendation tool with one parameter.

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%, meaning the description must compensate. It does so by describing the parameter as a 'plain-English use-case', which clarifies the format beyond a generic 'string'. However, it lacks examples or further constraints, so the added value is moderate.

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's function: given a plain-English use-case, recommend a HotPocket pattern covering specific components. It uses a specific verb ('recommend') and resource ('HotPocket pattern'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_templates' or 'generate_contract' by focusing on pattern selection based on use-case.

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 explicitly conditions use on having a 'plain-English use-case', which provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare to sibling tools like 'list_templates' or 'check_determinism', missing some guidance on alternatives.

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