get_magento_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns patterns, code examples, and what to avoid, which gives some behavioral insight. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's read-only, has rate limits, requires authentication, or how it handles errors, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds context about 'vibe coding' without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured, but overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or return format. It's adequate for a simple query tool with one parameter, but doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'task' parameter clearly documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the task should be coding-related (e.g., 'read a file'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: to get the correct Magento 2 way to accomplish a task, returning patterns, code examples, and anti-patterns. It specifies the resource (Magento 2 patterns) and verb (get), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'explain_rule' or 'validate_code'.

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 provides implied usage guidance by mentioning 'vibe coding' for writing Magento-compliant code naturally, suggesting it's for coding tasks. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, such as how it differs from 'explain_rule' or 'validate_code', and doesn't specify exclusions or prerequisites.

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