Ucontrol Read Umap Model Patterns

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the scoping constraint that results are linked to a specific uMap model, which is useful context, but no additional behavioral details such as return format or pagination are provided.

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 concise sentence, front-loads the API context, and contains no superfluous content.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the operation's scope. It lacks detail on the structure of patterns, but given the domain-specific language and annotations, it is sufficiently complete for basic invocation.

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 sole parameter uMapId is not described in the schema, and description only implicitly identifies it as the uMap model identifier via 'linked to a uMap model.' This provides some meaning but lacks format, source, or usage examples.

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 lists discovery patterns linked to a uMap model, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ucontrol_read_umap_model_details by focusing on patterns.

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 no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance, but the phrasing implies it's for retrieving discovery patterns for a specific uMap model. Siblings exist but no exclusion criteria are given.

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