recommend_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It adds a concrete behavioral detail about units (millimetres regardless of document Units) and states determinism, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not mention that it is read-only or any other side effects, but the operation is inherently non-mutating.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a concise unit clarification. No wasted words, each sentence contributes value.

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 complexity of the requirement object (with many optional fields) and the lack of parameter descriptions, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain how to formulate a requirement or what 'compatible' means, but since an output schema exists, return structure need not be explained. It could be improved with a brief note on the requirement's purpose.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only mentions that distances are in millimetres, which applies to some parameters but does not explain the requirement object's fields or how to construct it. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb ('Rank') and resource ('compatible footprint patterns from a pattern library'), with the added detail of deterministic ranking. This distinguishes it from siblings like scan_pattern_libraries and get_library_pattern.

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 it is used when you need to rank patterns based on a requirement, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like query_library_items or scan_pattern_libraries, nor does it provide any exclusions or context for choosing it.

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