list_patterns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the non-mutating nature of the tool, which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it does not mention return shape, ordering, pagination, or any other runtime behavior an agent might need before relying on the call.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The most important safety property, non-mutation, is placed clearly at the end, and every phrase adds meaning about what the tool exposes.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation with no output schema, the description gives a solid picture of the returned data and the operation's safety profile. It is not fully complete because it never explicitly states that the tool returns all patterns or describes the result structure as a list, but the tool name and phrasing make this reasonably clear.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain argument semantics. The description instead clarifies what the returned pattern structures contain, which is useful context in the absence of an output schema. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 name and description together clearly identify this as a pattern-listing operation, and the description specifies the resource (patterns) and the kind of data included (runtime indices, geometry, fabrics, placement, sewing groups). However, the description lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not directly contrast with sibling query tools such as get_pattern_info or list_sewings.

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 statement 'Does not mutate the MD scene' implies this is a safe read-only operation, giving an agent a reason to prefer it over mutation tools like create_pattern or delete_pattern. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose list_patterns over other read-only siblings such as list_sewings, list_fabrics, or get_pattern_info.

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