fl_find_empty_pattern

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail—'without changing the current pattern'—which is not captured by any annotation. This goes beyond the structured metadata and clarifies the tool's side-effect-free nature on selection.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and a key constraint with zero filler. Every word earns its place, and it is immediately scannable.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter) and read-only, with annotations covering safety. An output schema exists (not shown but indicated), so return format is covered. The only minor gap is the meaning of 'default-empty pattern,' which is domain-specific but likely understood in context. Overall, nothing essential is missing for a correct call.

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%; the parameter 'start_pattern_number' is already documented as 'First pattern number to inspect.' The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully explains the parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('first default-empty pattern'), and adds a behavioral qualifier ('without changing the current pattern') that distinguishes it from mutation tools like fl_select_pattern or fl_set_pattern_identity. It is immediately actionable and not a tautology.

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 implies a usage scenario: you want to locate an empty pattern while preserving the current selection. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., vs. fl_list_patterns or fl_select_pattern). The context is implicit rather than explicit.

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