generate_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. It only says 'Returns code' without mentioning side effects, external calls, determinism, permission needs, error behavior, or what happens to the input vectors. For a generation tool that takes a complex epistemic vector object, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 fluff. The first sentence front-loads the action and input. The second sentence clarifies the output format. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool has a complex input (nested object with 13 properties) and no output schema, yet the description only provides a high-level purpose. It does not explain how to choose values for the vectors, what each mode ('full', 'minimal', 'drums') means in terms of output, or what the generated code looks like. While the schema details parameter semantics, the description lacks guidance on usage nuances and expected output behavior, making it only minimally complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes every parameter and vector sub-property. The description adds the context that these are 'epistemic vectors' and that the result is Strudel code, but it does not explain how mode, includeComments, or individual vector values affect the output. The schema already handles the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: it 'Generate a Strudel music pattern from epistemic vectors' and 'Returns code that can be pasted into strudel.cc.' This is a specific verb+resource+output. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'crossfade_pattern' or 'generate_mood', but the unique input ('epistemic vectors') and output code makes the purpose fairly distinct.

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 gives clear context: the tool is for generating Strudel code from epistemic vectors. It implies that the agent should use it when it has such vectors and needs a pattern to paste into strudel.cc. It does not state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is explicit enough to guide selection among siblings.

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