get_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Return the full text'), but does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior, permissions, or side effects. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not exemplary.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The main action and purpose are front-loaded, and the secondary sentence provides usage guidance. Perfectly concise for a simple tool.

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 the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and is straightforward, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, how to get the input, and why to use it. No gaps remain.

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 already covers the parameter with 100% coverage and a description. The tool description adds value by reinforcing the relationship to list_patterns and giving an example pattern name, which helps the agent understand how to select a valid name.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'full text of an orchestration pattern', and explicitly references sibling tool list_patterns for how to get valid names. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on retrieval of full text vs listing or usage.

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 tells when to use the tool: 'Use it to apply the pattern when orchestrating ask_gpt calls.' It also directs the agent to see list_patterns for available names, providing clear context for correct usage, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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