manage_patterns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's action descriptions (list all patterns, details about a specific pattern) add basic behavioral context without contradicting the annotation. It does not discuss error handling, output format, or edge cases, but the annotation reduces the burden.

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 concise and includes concrete examples, but the leading '[ORGANIZATION]' placeholder is unnecessary noise. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters, the description covers the available actions and parameter usage. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by phrases like 'all patterns' and 'details about a specific pattern'. It does not address invalid pattern names, but overall it is adequately complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description adds little beyond examples. The example values ('base') illustrate usage but do not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the tool as 'Unified zypper pattern management' and enumerates two specific actions (list_patterns, pattern_info), making its purpose distinct from sibling tools focused on package management, updates, and system checks. The examples further reinforce what the tool does.

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 provides example invocations and indicates that this is for pattern management, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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