suggest_design_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'provides' templates and explanations, implying a read-only retrieval operation, but does not explicitly disclose that it is non-destructive, requires no permissions, or any other behavioral traits such as output format or side effects.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, efficiently conveying purpose, domain, and reference.

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?

Given the simple input schema (one pattern name) and the existence of an output schema (described in the tool definition), the description is complete. It covers the essential aspect of what the tool does and the domain, and the output schema handles return values.

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 a single parameter pattern_name having a description listing supported patterns. The description adds value by specifying that these are for 'modern Fortran design patterns mapping to GoF / Refactoring.Guru,' which gives context beyond the schema's list.

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?

Description clearly states the tool provides boilerplate templates and architectural explanations for Fortran design patterns, mapping to GoF/Refactoring.Guru. It uses a specific verb-resource combination ('provides boilerplate templates and architectural explanations') and distinguishes itself from siblings like suggest_refactoring which focus on code refactoring rather than design 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?

Description implies usage for retrieving design pattern templates and explanations in Fortran. Context is clear, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, nor mention of alternatives like suggest_refactoring for non-pattern tasks.

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