get_composition_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only lookup that returns advisory output, but it does not cover error behavior for unknown component types, case sensitivity, or whether the result is guaranteed to exist.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior and remains complete without unnecessary detail.

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 single-parameter lookup tool, the description tells the agent what input to supply and what kind of output to expect. The main gap is the lack of detail about the exact shape or content of the composition pattern, but the tool's complexity is low enough that this is not a critical omission.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description and example. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable since the schema already documents the component argument adequately.

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 ('Returns') and names the exact resource ('recommended Radix primitive(s) and composition pattern') for a given component type. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from siblings like get_primitive or list_primitives.

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 when to use the tool: when an agent needs recommended primitives and a composition pattern for a component type. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer get_primitive or list_primitives, nor does it state any exclusions or alternative conditions.

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