get_service_pattern

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating the tool 'returns patterns, do/don't guidance, evidence, and a checklist,' making the response format predictable for the agent.

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 long with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then immediately lists return contents and when to use the tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a one-parameter enum schema, readOnly/idempotent annotations, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description is complete. An agent can select this tool, choose the correct enum value, and invoke it with confidence based on the information provided.

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 schema already covers the single parameter `type` at 100% with a full enum and description. The prose mostly restates those enum values, though it adds 'recovery' as an alias for the moments-of-truth context. This is useful but does not substantially extend schema-provided meaning.

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 ('a service design pattern'), and enumerates the specific pattern types. It is clearly scoped to service design and therefore distinct from the generic sibling get_pattern, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like get_service_standard or get_checklist.

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 provides clear trigger conditions: 'Use when the user is designing a service flow, escalation, cross-channel experience, or moment of truth.' It does not, however, say when not to use this tool or name alternatives for non-service design requests, so it lacks explicit exclusions or sibling routing.

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