pattern_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the contents of the returned information (lines, points, arrangement, fabric, seams), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects, nor does it mention any failure modes. The nature of 'info' implies a retrieval, but a clearer statement about safe usage would be more transparent.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists the specific data categories. It avoids redundancy and every phrase adds value. There is no wasted wording.

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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information an agent needs: what the tool does, what input it takes (name or index), and the type of output (lines, points, arrangement, fabric, seams). It even specifies points are in 2D mm, which adds detail. It does not mention error handling or the exact output structure, but for a read-only info tool this is sufficient.

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 input schema has a single parameter 'pattern' with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning by specifying that the parameter can be a name or index, which clarifies what the user must provide. This is valuable but does not go into format details, so it does not fully compensate for the schema gap, making a 4 appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'full information about one piece (by name or index)' and lists the exact data types (lines, points, arrangement, fabric, seams). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pattern_list (which likely lists multiple patterns) and pattern_create (which creates patterns). The phrase 'one piece' makes the scope explicit.

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 usage when a specific pattern piece needs detail, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It states the input can be a name or index, but provides no guidance on when not to use this tool or how it relates to other pattern tools. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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