ida_list_patches

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies what information is returned (address, original/patched bytes) but does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation or mention any edge cases or side effects. Given the simple nature of the tool, the disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, the first stating the action and scope, the second detailing the output. Every word contributes meaning, with no unnecessary verbiage or repetition of the tool name.

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 tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete for the simplicity of the operation, and no further context is needed to use it effectively.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description naturally adds no parameter-level detail. Per the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4, which is appropriate here since there is nothing further to document.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('all patches applied to the IDA database'), and details the output fields (address, original byte value, patched byte value). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like ida_patch_bytes that modify patches.

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 intended use is implied by the name and description—use this when you need to see existing patches. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor exclusions for cases where it might not apply.

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