crossfade_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only describes the core action. It does not mention whether this is a pure generation operation, what the output format is, whether it makes changes, or any side effects or requirements.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and clearly structured. It has no wasted words and directly conveys the tool's purpose.

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 too terse given the lack of annotations and output schema. It does not explain what 'patterns' or 'epistemic states' mean, how the transition works, what the resulting series looks like, or any constraints on the steps parameter. More context is needed for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 descriptions for from, to, and steps already cover 100% of parameters with meaningful clarity. The description adds the concept of 'transition between two epistemic states' which hints at the from/to semantics but does not add significant detail beyond the schema.

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 function: generating a series of patterns that transition between two epistemic states, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_pattern by emphasizing the transition between two states, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_pattern or generate_mood. The description only states what the tool does, not the context or conditions under which it should be selected.

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