view_patterns

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

The description explains what the rendered picture will contain: blue numbers are line_index values, 'sN' labels seam lines, grey lines are internal, and layered pieces are annotated with +z/-z. Since no annotations are provided, this detail is valuable, though it does not specify the return format or explicitly confirm the operation is read-only.

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 well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the visual legend, a helpful pairing note, and parameter details. It is slightly dense but every sentence carries necessary information.

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 visualization tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the picture shows and directs users to get_pattern_geometry for exact data. It only lacks minor details such as the returned file format or how the picture is delivered.

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 only provides a title and default for pattern_index, but the description adds meaning: 'Draw only this piece (default: all pieces).' This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and makes the optional parameter's behavior clear.

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 a specific outcome: 'Picture of the 2D pattern pieces with every outline line numbered and seams coloured.' It clearly identifies the tool as a visual inspection tool and distinguishes it from get_pattern_geometry, which is for exact lengths and coordinates.

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 gives useful context by saying to pair this tool with get_pattern_geometry for exact measurements. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer view_patterns over the many export_* siblings (e.g., export_thumbnail, export_snapshot, export_pattern_sheet), so the routing is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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