explain_lampa_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 does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, has rate limits, or any side effects. For an explanatory tool, safety and idempotency are assumed but not stated.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action. Slightly more structure could be beneficial, but it remains clear 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 the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and output type (explanation with code examples). However, it lacks behavioral details and does not fully compensate for missing annotations, making it adequate but not thorough.

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 sole parameter 'pattern' has 100% schema coverage with an enum and description. The tool description repeats 'core Lampa development pattern' but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 a detailed explanation') and resource ('core Lampa development pattern'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying 'real extracted code examples' and 'fastest way to understand how Lampa works', which sets it apart from other lookup or deep-dive tools.

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 understanding a Lampa pattern is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like doc_lookup or plugin_deep_dive. No exclusion criteria or contrasting guidance is provided.

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