golang_get_pattern

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully communicate behavioral traits. It only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but fails to disclose whether it is idempotent, what happens if the pattern does not exist, or any side effects. Important context about error handling or output format is missing.

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 of 8 words, extremely concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose. However, the brevity sacrifices some detail, preventing a higher score.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal to be fully complete. It does not indicate what the returned data contains (e.g., code snippet, explanation), how errors are handled, or how the 'idiomatic code' emphasis translates into output. For a simple getter, more context is expected.

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 on the single parameter 'name', which already includes example values. The description adds the phrase 'idiomatic code' but does not further clarify the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, it meets the baseline but adds no significant semantic enhancement.

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 a Go design pattern with idiomatic code', specifying the verb (get), resource (Go design pattern), and additional context (idiomatic code). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like golang_list_patterns (for listing) and golang_get_antipatterns (for anti-patterns), as well as other get_pattern tools for different frameworks.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as golang_list_patterns (to list all patterns) or golang_get_antipatterns (to get anti-patterns). There is no guidance on scenarios or prerequisites.

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