get_pattern_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it does disclose the most critical trait: 'Does not mutate the MD scene,' which is the key safety-relevant behavior for an inspection tool. It falls short of disclosing what 'ambiguous mappings are flagged' means operationally (e.g., return format, error behavior on an invalid pattern_index). Adequate but not rich.

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 sentences with zero filler; the core purpose and the safety disclaimer are both front-loaded and every clause earns its place. Efficient and well-ordered.

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 simple one-parameter read tool this is reasonably complete: purpose, timing, and non-mutation are all stated. However, with no output schema, the return content is only sketched ('geometry and line indices', 'ambiguous mappings flagged'), and pattern_index semantics are undocumented. Adequate with clear gaps.

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 never mentions pattern_index, its valid range, or indexing semantics (e.g., 0-based, relationship to list_patterns order). The only clue is the contextual inference that the index selects which pattern is inspected. With zero schema coverage, the description was obligated to compensate and largely does 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 states a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('geometry and line indices'), and frames the tool's purpose ('before edits'), which is clear and distinct in role. It does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from, but the inspection-vs-mutation contrast is evident. Slightly terse, yet unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 phrase 'before edits' gives a clear temporal context for when to call the tool, which is genuinely useful guidance. However, no alternatives are named or excluded despite many overlapping siblings (get_pattern_points, list_patterns, inspect_md_api) that an agent might confuse it with. Usage context exists but exclusions and alternative routing are absent.

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