lenis_get_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It uses the verb 'Get' implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or require no special permissions. Missing details on side effects, prerequisites, or result caching.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence establishes purpose and value, second lists coverage areas. Front-loaded and 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?

Given no output schema and low complexity, the description covers content (what patterns include) but lacks detail on output format (e.g., code snippets, full files, structured data). Returns 'complete pattern' but format is unspecified.

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 enum descriptions. The description lists some enum values in prose ('Next.js setup, GSAP integration...') but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies as the schema carries the parameter information.

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 tool retrieves a 'complete Lenis integration pattern with full production-ready code' and lists specific integrations (Next.js, GSAP, Framer Motion, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like lenis_list_apis (lists APIs) and lenis_generate_setup (generates basic setup).

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 usage when a full pattern is needed but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like lenis_generate_setup or other pattern tools. No when-not-to-use or sibling differentiation is provided.

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