style_pattern

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be needed, whether it modifies existing elements or creates new ones, or what happens after pattern definition. The single sentence offers no behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by 'defines.'

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 extremely concise - a single Korean sentence. While this could be seen as efficient, it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise. However, it does follow the principle of being front-loaded with the core action, and there's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 a pattern definition tool with 4 parameters (3 required) and no annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after pattern definition, how patterns are used, what the SVG content parameter should contain, or how this tool integrates with the many sibling drawing and styling tools. For a tool that likely creates reusable graphical patterns, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 '패턴을 정의합니다' (Defines a pattern) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'style_pattern' without providing meaningful context. It doesn't specify what kind of pattern, for what purpose, or how it relates to the sibling tools. While it includes a verb ('정의합니다' - defines), it lacks specificity about the resource or domain.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools related to styling (style_fill, style_gradient, style_stroke) and drawing operations, but no indication of how this pattern definition tool fits into the workflow or when it should be selected over other styling options.

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