fl_list_patterns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description aligns with these annotations and adds the specific returned fields, but it does not add operational caveats such as scope or ordering. With such strong annotation coverage, the description does not need to carry much additional behavioral burden.

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 sentence with no filler. The action and the returned attribute categories are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with a declared output schema and fully covered safety annotations, the description is complete. It identifies the resource and the fields surfaced, and nothing else is needed for correct invocation.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is complete, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description usefully indicates what the response concerns—pattern identity, length, state, and empty/default status—which is the only relevant semantic for a no-argument listing call.

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 opens with an active verb ('List') and a specific resource ('patterns'), then enumerates the returned dimensions: identity, length, current state, and empty/default status. This is clear enough for an agent to tell it apart from mutating pattern tools like fl_set_pattern_identity and fl_set_pattern_length, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as fl_find_empty_pattern, fl_select_pattern, or the fl_set_pattern_* tools. Usage context is only implicit in the verb 'List' rather than explicitly stated.

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