suggest_ethical_alternative

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses a dictionary return value with rewritten copy, redesigned flow, and ethical justification, but it does not state whether the tool has side effects, requires dependencies or permissions, or what happens on missing or invalid pattern IDs. The verb 'suggest' implies non-mutating behavior, but that is not explicit.

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 brief, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. It avoids filler and each section adds some value, though the parameter description is thin.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool embedded among dark-pattern analysis tools. It does not explain how to obtain pattern_id, when this tool should be called in a workflow, or how the returned alternatives relate to outputs from sibling tools. The output schema may cover return structure, but the surrounding context is insufficient.

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 schema has one parameter, pattern_id, and the description adds only 'The ID of the pattern,' which essentially restates the schema title 'Pattern Id.' Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining where the ID comes from, its format, or its relationship to other tools, but it 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 clear verb and object: 'Suggest ethical UI alternatives.' The Args/Returns section makes clear it operates on a pattern and returns alternative UI copy, flow, and justification. It does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like detect_dark_patterns or classify_pattern, but its purpose is reasonably self-evident.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus detect_dark_patterns, classify_pattern, explain_manipulation, or risk_score. The only implicit cue is the phrase 'ethical UI alternatives,' which is not enough to route an agent to this tool among related siblings. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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