a2a_auditor__list_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but for a zero-parameter read-only enumeration the burden is light. It does disclose the output shape ('grouped by category'), which is genuinely useful context, yet it omits any note on whether results are static/cached, how large the listing can get, or what the category values are.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action, domain, and result structure in order. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, nothing to trim.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it partly supplies that ('grouped by category'). However, it leaves the agent guessing about the pattern identifiers returned, how many exist, and whether those identifiers map to anything the scan tools consume, which is the main use case for a list_patterns call.

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 takes no parameters, so the schema cannot be improved by description text. Baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies a parameterless enumeration with no configurable filters.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('A2A (Agent2Agent) protocol pattern') scoped to this auditor, and adds that results are grouped by category. The A2A qualifier separates it from the many sibling *__list_patterns tools (agent_graph, secret_scanner, etc.), so an agent can identify the domain without opening the schema.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over the sibling a2a_auditor__scan_text/scan_file/scan_directory tools, and no statement of prerequisites. The purpose is self-evident for a list-style tool, but nothing in the text routes the agent or sets exclusions.

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