Get a UX pattern

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by enumerating what the response contains (problem, solution, rules, accessibility obligations, anti-patterns), but it says nothing about invalid ids, error behavior, or whether the pattern set is closed (the enum implies it is, yet this is not stated).

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the payload contents are front-loaded in a scannable list. It loses a point for spending its only clause on return contents rather than leading with the verb and purpose.

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 no output schema, the description does the right thing by describing the returned sections, which is enough for an agent to know what it gets back. However, for a single-lookup tool in a large sibling set, it omits when to prefer it over get_behavior/get_foundation and omits any failure-mode context.

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 100% with a single enum-constrained 'id' parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no information about valid ids, case sensitivity, or what happens for an id outside the enum.

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 conveys the resource: a UX pattern record containing problem, solution, rules, accessibility obligations and anti-patterns. It is not a tautology of the name, but it uses a noun phrase with no verb ('retrieve/return') and never distinguishes this from siblings such as get_behavior or get_foundation, so an agent gets no explicit routing signal.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_behavior, get_foundation, or search, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit hint is the word 'Sekura', which suggests a design-system reference lookup, but the agent must infer that.

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