apg_list_patterns

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the behavior of listing all pattern ids and titles with a case-insensitive substring filter. Annotations already mark it as readOnly and not open-world, and the description confirms safe read operation. 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 extremely concise: two sentences, no redundant words. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the filter detail is added immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what is returned (ids and titles) and the filter behavior. It does not specify the response format (e.g., JSON array), but the output is predictable for a list.

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 description for the 'query' parameter. The description adds the detail 'case-insensitive substring', which goes beyond the schema's 'optional substring filter'. This extra information helps the agent understand the parameter behavior.

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 'List all APG pattern ids and titles', specifying the verb (list), resource (APG patterns), and output (ids and titles). It includes an optional filter, and the name and description together distinguish from siblings like apg_get_pattern and apg_semantic_search.

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 that this tool is for listing all patterns with optional filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives such as apg_get_pattern for a single pattern or apg_semantic_search for semantic queries. The context from sibling names helps, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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