get_pattern_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the directory scope and the two behaviors (list all vs. fetch one), but does not mention read-only behavior, expected return format, error cases, or availability constraints. This is adequate but not rich.

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, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the action and target, the second provides usage alternatives. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description covers the invocation mechanics well. However, it lacks details about the response structure, file format constraints, and error scenarios, which a complete agent aid might include.

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 coverage is 100% (1 param with description). The description adds value by clarifying the base path ('config/references/') and giving concrete examples (core/plugin-patterns.md, core/declarative-schema.md), which go beyond the schema's generic description.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a 'Magento pattern reference doc' from a specific directory 'config/references/', and distinguishes between fetching a specific file by path or listing all available references. This is precise, specific, and differentiates from siblings.

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?

Description provides explicit usage pattern: provide the path to get a specific doc, omit it to list all references. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for correct invocation.

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