Get an Enterprise AI Pattern

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the included content sections, which is marginally useful, but does not reveal other behavioral traits such as not-found handling, locale defaults, or any rate limits. With annotations present, this meets the baseline.

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 short sentences with zero fluff: the first states the purpose and return contents, the second gives the usage trigger. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 simple retrieval tool with annotations, a complete input schema, and an output schema, the description provides all necessary selection and invocation context. It even routes the user to the correct preceding tools (search/list_patterns), making the definition fully adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both slug and locale are already documented in the input schema. The description only mentions 'by slug' and adds no new parameter-level meaning, keeping the score at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 ('Enterprise AI pattern'), and access method ('by slug'), and enumerates the content included (problem, solution, KPIs, failure modes, lessons). This clearly differentiates it from sibling list/search tools like list_patterns and search.

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?

It explicitly instructs to use this tool after search or list_patterns has returned a slug, providing a clear invocation context. It does not name alternative get_* tools for other resource types, but the guidance is sufficient for the primary workflow.

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