get_pattern_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey a read-only operation via the verb 'Get' and states the returned information is a total count. However, it does not disclose whether the count includes only main pieces versus internal/topstitch pieces, or what happens if no project is open — behavioral details an agent might need.

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?

A single 12-word sentence with zero waste that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant elaboration.

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 trivial zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description is mostly complete: it states the purpose and scope. Minor gaps remain — the return type is only implied ('total number' suggests an integer) and error behavior for a missing project is unspecified — but nothing blocks 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly needs no parameter explanation; the empty schema has 100% coverage trivially, and nothing is left ambiguous about invocation arguments.

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 ('Get'), resource ('total number of pattern pieces'), and scope ('current project'). The word 'count' inherently distinguishes this from siblings like get_pattern_list, get_pattern_info, and get_pattern_geometry, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 alternatives such as get_pattern_list or get_pattern_info. There is no mention of when a count is preferred over a full list, no exclusions, and no prerequisites (e.g., requiring an open project), leaving the selection decision entirely to the agent.

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