Liste Block Patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies what block patterns are ('vorgefertigte Layouts') but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or requires special permissions. However, the name and verb 'Listet' strongly imply a non-mutating list operation, so a 3 is appropriate—it adds context but lacks explicit safety/behavioral details.

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 sentence that is concise, informative, and front-loaded with the action. It explains the resource in a parenthetical without unnecessary verbosity. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a low-complexity list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It doesn't describe the return format or pagination, but for a simple 'list all' operation, that's usually understood. It also doesn't mention the category filter, but that's in the schema. Slightly more detail on return structure would make it fully complete, hence 4.

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 one optional parameter 'category' with a description ('Filter nach Kategorie'), providing 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not mention this filter, but since the schema already documents it, the description adds no extra semantic value. 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 'Listet alle verfügbaren Gutenberg Block Patterns (vorgefertigte Layouts)' clearly states a specific verb (list) and resource (Gutenberg block patterns), with an explanatory parenthetical. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pattern_get_pattern' (which likely retrieves a single pattern) by emphasizing 'alle verfügbaren' (all available).

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 implies usage: use this tool when you need a list of all available block patterns. However, it provides no explicit comparison to alternatives like 'gutenberg_list_block_types' or 'pattern_get_pattern', nor any exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. This is a standard list tool, so the implied usage is clear, but explicit differentiation would elevate it.

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