get_pattern_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether any side effects occur, or what prerequisites exist (e.g., pattern must exist). While being a 'get' implies non-mutating, this is not explicitly stated, and no additional behavioral context is given.

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 unnecessary words. It lists the key returned attributes concisely and front-loads the main action. This is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.

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 there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the return value looks like (e.g., a structured object with those fields, or separate values). It also does not explain domain-specific terms like 'solidify state' or '3D arrangement'. For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully guide correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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 0% coverage for pattern_index, and the description does not explain what pattern_index refers to (e.g., index into the pattern list) or its expected format/range. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the name, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Get') and clearly enumerates the attributes returned (layer, solidify state, grain direction, shrinkage, 3D arrangement). This makes the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_pattern_info or get_pattern_geometry, which might overlap. The specificity of the listed fields is a strong positive.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pattern_info, get_pattern_geometry, or set_pattern_state. The name implies it is for retrieving state, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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