get_library_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'normalized' as a behavioral trait and makes clear this is a read operation, but it does not describe edge cases like not-found behavior, multiple matches, or case sensitivity. It is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and resource, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks critical invocation details. It does not explain the required path parameter, how multiple parameters interact, or the meaning of 'normalized'. Given no annotations, this one-line description is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool, especially with a required parameter not mentioned.

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 0% and the description only hints at name and stable_id as keys, completely omitting the required `path` parameter. This is actively misleading: an agent might call the tool with only name or stable_id, expecting success, but the schema requires path. The description adds no meaningful clarification for any parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('one normalized pattern-library item') with explicit lookup keys ('by stable id or exact name'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_library_component or query_library_items.

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 the tool is used when you have a stable id or exact name, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like query_library_items or scan_pattern_libraries. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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