List Design Patterns

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is fully covered. The description adds the shape of the returned 'minimal view' and the notable edge case that unknown category values yield an empty list, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or size limits for a full listing.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then filters. The long parenthetical enumerations make the text bulky, but they encode enum values that the schema does not fully supply, so most of the length is justified.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, both filters with accepted values, filter semantics, and the returned fields. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 67%, and the language parameter's enum is absent from the schema description while the tool description spells out all thirteen values plus the join semantics ('keeps patterns with a joined implementation for that language'). It genuinely adds meaning the schema does not carry, though the category list duplicates schema text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all design patterns known to the server') and immediately characterizes the payload as a minimal view of name/category/description. This clearly separates it from get_design_pattern (single pattern) and the selection/generation siblings without needing their schemas.

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 two optional filters imply the main usage modes (browse everything vs. narrow by category/language), but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus select_design_patterns or get_design_pattern. An agent must infer the routing from the sibling names.

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