designer_get_interaction_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only describes the return content but does not state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or requires any authentication. For a simple getter, this is a minor gap.

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 sentence, very concise, and front-loads the purpose. It avoids fluff but could include a brief usage example or note about the output structure without becoming verbose.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of what is returned. However, it lacks context about how this tool fits among the many designer_ siblings, and whether the returned data is structured or prose.

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 schema has 100% coverage with a single enum parameter described as 'Interaction pattern category'. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, which already documents the parameter adequately. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'interaction pattern', and lists what it returns (key rule, detail, best practices, anti-patterns). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like designer_get_anti_patterns, which could cause ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools covering related concepts, the description should mention typical use cases or exclusion criteria, but it provides none.

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