get_ux_error_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve' implies a non-mutating read, and it names the returned payload components (UI behavior guidance, BLoC state pattern, anti-patterns), which is useful. It says nothing about permissions, whether BLoC patterns are framework-version specific, or behavior on an unrecognized scenario — a real gap given zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by compact Args/Returns blocks; no filler. The Returns block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it is one line and adds no noise.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, the parameter's meaning via examples, and the shape of the result. The only meaningful gaps are the enumerated-vs-free-form question and error behavior for invalid scenarios.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single 'scenario' property has no description in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does partially: it names the parameter as an 'error or edge scenario identifier' and gives four concrete examples. It never says whether the value must come from a fixed set or is free-form, nor what happens for an unknown identifier.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a precise resource set — UX design patterns, UI behaviors, and BLoC state transitions for error/edge scenarios. An agent immediately knows what it gets back. It does not differentiate from siblings, but the sibling list (Huly task tools, architecture validators) is a wholly different domain, so confusion risk is low; that keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing ('error/edge scenarios') and the example scenario values ('auth_failure', 'network_timeout', 'form_validation', 'empty_state') suggest when it applies. However there is no explicit when-to-use, no stated prerequisite (e.g., must know the scenario before calling), and no pointer to any alternative tool for non-error UX patterns.

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