get_service_pattern

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

The description discloses return content (patterns, guidance, evidence, checklist) beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). It adds behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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: first defines functionality, second gives usage. Front-loaded with key information. No superfluous words.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and return format completely. No gaps.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the pattern types and contextualizing them (e.g., "moments of truth / recovery"), helping the agent understand the enum semantics.

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", the resource "service design pattern", and enumerates specific patterns (e.g., service blueprinting, human handoff). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying "service design pattern" among many design-related 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 explicitly states when to use the tool: "when the user is designing a service flow, escalation, cross-channel experience, or moment of truth." It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear.

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