pattern_find_by_name

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. It transparently states case-insensitive matching and explicitly covers the null return case, which is important lookup behavior. It does not mention whether the tool has side effects, but the read-only nature of a find-by-name lookup is reasonably implied.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then adds matching behavior and return format, all in minimal space.

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 one-parameter, low-complexity lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, matching semantics, and return behavior including the not-found case. It does not explain how the returned index relates to other pattern tools, but that is not essential for invoking this tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The single parameter 'name' is defined as an exact pattern name with case-insensitive matching, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Name' title. It could also explain what qualifies as a valid pattern name, but for a simple lookup this is sufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('a pattern'), and the exact matching semantics ('exact name, case-insensitive'). It also discloses the return shape ('{index, name} or null'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pattern_list, pattern_count, or 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 description implies a clear use case: when you have an exact pattern name and need its index/name. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative like pattern_list for enumerating or pattern_select for changing the current pattern, leaving the when-not-to-use guidance implicit.

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