get_interaction_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this is a read-only lookup, what the return format is, whether the pattern is deterministic, or what happens when an invalid pattern_id is given. For a retrieval tool, the safety profile and failure behavior are undocumented.

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 one terse sentence with no wasted words, which is efficient. However, it's under-specified rather than concise—the single sentence does minimal work and doesn't earn its place by providing useful context beyond the tool name.

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 1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate for the missing behavioral and return-value context. It doesn't describe what an interaction pattern contains, what output shape to expect, or how it differs from get_api_endpoint and other sibling lookups. For a data-retrieval tool, this is incomplete.

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%, and the pattern_id description lists concrete example values ('metric_card', 'dialog', 'drawer', etc.), which is genuinely helpful. However, the description itself adds nothing beyond the schema—it doesn't clarify the format, case sensitivity, or how a user discovers valid pattern_ids. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the strong schema coverage.

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 'Get UI component interaction pattern for automation' states a verb and resource, but it's vague—it doesn't specify what an interaction pattern is, what kind of automation it supports, or what domain/scope these patterns cover. The sibling tools (get_field, get_page, get_workflow) suggest a metadata/documentation system, but the description doesn't clarify how interaction patterns fit in that context.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_field or get_page. There's no exclusions or context about when an interaction pattern is needed versus other metadata lookups. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites or relationships to other tools.

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