apg_get_pattern

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the output format (Markdown, requirements, keyboard, ARIA, example summaries with live URLs), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the key purpose and content of the response. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the response as full pattern documentation in Markdown and example summaries with live URLs. It covers the essential aspects for a retrieval tool, though it could mention the structure or metadata included.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides for patternId and includeMarkdown; it only reiterates the concept of 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 explicitly states it returns 'full pattern documentation as Markdown' covering requirements, keyboard, ARIA, etc., plus example summaries with live URLs. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like apg_list_patterns (which lists patterns) and apg_get_example (which gets a specific example).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion scenarios.

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