pattern_current

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It accurately states the return content, but does not disclose edge-case behavior such as what happens when no pattern is selected, nor the exact response format. This is acceptable for a simple getter but leaves some uncertainty.

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 sentence that immediately states what is returned. There is no filler, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter getter, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource and the returned fields. The only gap is the unspecified behavior when no pattern is selected, which would be useful but is not critical for this low-complexity tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no ambiguity introduced by missing param documentation.

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 ('Return') and a specific resource ('currently selected pattern'), and names the output ('index + name'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pattern_list, pattern_count, and pattern_select.

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 phrase 'currently selected pattern' makes the intended usage clear: use this whenever you need the active pattern's index and name. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives, but the scope is unambiguous enough that an agent is unlikely to confuse it with list/count/select operations.

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