run_fabric_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'run' without stating whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, if there are side effects, permission needs, or failure modes. This is a significant gap for a generic execution tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word is necessary. It avoids fluff and gets directly to the point, making it highly efficient.

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 generic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'run' returns, how to interpret results, or any operational context (e.g., errors, timeouts). Given the tool's role as a fallback, more guidance on expected behavior is needed.

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 covers both parameters (pattern and input) with clear descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only mentioning 'custom input', which is vague and does not enhance semantic understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema effectively documents parameters.

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 it runs any Fabric pattern with custom input, using the specific verb 'run' and resource 'Fabric pattern'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it is for patterns not covered by specific tools, making its purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 'Use this for patterns not covered by specific tools' provides clear contextual guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling-specific ones. It implies an exclusion (don't use if a specific tool exists), though it could be more explicit about the 'when not to use' scenario.

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