get_pattern

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, so the bar for behavior disclosure is lower. The description adds useful output-shape context by stating the returned components (do's, don'ts, evidence, checklists), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not disclose more behavioral detail such as behavior on invalid or unsupported type values.

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 single focused sentence with the main verb-object relationship front-loaded. The long list of pattern types is somewhat heavy, but each listed item is informative and supports correct parameter selection. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name, though the sentence is a bit list-heavy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description usefully states what the return content includes and lists supported pattern domains. The annotations handle safety/idempotence, and the schema handles parameter semantics. A minor gap is lack of explicit discrimination from the several similar get_* sibling tools, especially get_principles and get_checklist.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's enumerated pattern categories overlap with the type parameter's examples but do not add exact syntax, normalization rules, or behavior of the goal/platform filters beyond the schema. This meets the baseline but adds little extra semantic value.

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 identifies the action ('get'), the resource ('UI/UX patterns'), and what is returned ('do's, don'ts, evidence, and checklists'). It names specific pattern types, making the tool's scope fairly concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_principles, get_checklist, or get_content_pattern, but the combination of 'patterns' and the enumerated design types makes the core purpose unambiguous.

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 says what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over similar siblings such as get_principles, get_checklist, or get_content_pattern. There is no stated when-to-use/when-not-to-use context, no exclusions, and no alternatives named.

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