get_pattern_info

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 implicitly indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and lists the type of information returned. However, it does not disclose error handling, return format, or any prerequisites beyond naming a pattern. For a non-destructive get, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded sentence that specifies the action, target, and key content areas. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

With no output schema, the description should convey what the tool returns. It lists specific categories of information, giving a solid overview. However, it does not describe the response structure or potential edge cases, which for a simple lookup is a minor gap. Overall, it is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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% with the parameter description 'Pattern name' and an enum. The description adds 'named behavioral pattern' which reinforces the parameter's role but does not provide new syntactic or format details. Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, 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: 'Get detailed information about a named behavioral pattern' with specific content categories (substrate, recognition signals, blind spots, leverage points). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_system_info or list_all, which serve different purposes.

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 context is clear: use this when you have a specific named behavioral pattern and need details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the singular 'named' pattern implies it is for a specific pattern rather than a list or broad analysis, providing sufficient guidance.

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