pix_suggest_counter_pattern

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate those traits. It adds a little behavioral context by promising regexes that match either exactly or by family, but it leaves unclear what 'whole family' means or what the returned regexes look like.

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 only one sentence and has no filler or redundant phrases, making it efficient. It is slightly under-specified, but all words contribute to the core meaning, so conciseness itself is good.

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-only tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and leaves the meaning of 'whole family' and the counter_name input under-specified, so an agent may not confidently choose and invoke it without extra inference.

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 has a single required counter_name string with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only refers indirectly to 'a counter' and never explains how counter_name should be formatted, whether it is an exact counter name, or how family selection is controlled. This is minimal added meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies the resource: regexes for selecting a counter, with the added scope of exact vs. family matches. This distinguishes it from counter-list or counter-collection siblings like pix_list_counters and pix_collect_counters, though the phrasing 'select a counter exactly' is somewhat terse.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of related counter tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The only signal is the implied use case: the agent should call this when it needs regex patterns to select counters. This falls short of clear routing guidance.

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