designer_get_landing_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('get') and returns information, but does not disclose behavior like caching, data freshness, or any side effects. The lack of safety cues (destructive hint) is acceptable for a read tool, but more detail would be beneficial.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. Every term ('key stats, best practices, and anti-patterns') adds value, 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's purpose and what it returns. However, it omits details about the response structure, which an agent might need to parse results. Given low complexity, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 well-defined enum and description. The main description adds context about the return content but adds no new meaning to the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter 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 clearly states 'Get landing page pattern' with specific deliverables (key stats, best practices, anti-patterns). The verb and resource are distinct, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'designer_get_anti_patterns' or 'designer_get_page_template', though the topic enum provides context.

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. The description implicitly suggests usage for landing page patterns, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or mention of related tools. The enum provides possible topics, but usage scenarios are not stated.

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