get_pattern_fabric

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of disclosing side effects, and it explicitly states 'Does not mutate the MD scene.' It does not describe return shape or error behavior, but for a simple getter the key non-mutation guarantee is covered.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The purpose and key behavioral note are both present and the description is easy to scan.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only getter, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: pass pattern_index to read the current assignment. No output schema exists, but the return meaning is implied; some detail on return format would make it fully complete.

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 0% and the description does not explain pattern_index at all, so the agent must infer the indexing scheme from the parameter name alone. Since coverage is low, the description was expected to compensate and did not.

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 ('Read') and identifies the resource ('actual pattern fabric assignment'), making the tool's purpose clear. It implicitly distinguishes this from assign_fabric (write) and list_fabrics (available fabrics), though it does not name sibling tools explicitly.

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 establishes a clear read-only context: use this to inspect the current fabric assignment, not to change it. It does not explicitly name assign_fabric as the mutation alternative or list exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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