a2a_auditor__list_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden, but 'list' strongly implies a read-only operation. It adds one real behavioral fact beyond the name: results are grouped by category. It does not state that no scanning occurs or whether patterns can be enabled/disabled.

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 no padding. Slightly self-referential ('this auditor detects') where 'detects' alone would carry the same 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of return-value information. Saying results are grouped by category is helpful, but it never indicates what a pattern entry contains (identifier, severity, description) or roughly how many to expect, leaving the agent guessing at the response shape.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for zero-param tools applies.

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 and resource (list every A2A protocol pattern this auditor detects) and expands the acronym, which distinguishes it from the many other *_list_patterns siblings by domain. It stops short of naming the specific scan_text/scan_file siblings it complements.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no reference to the alternatives. An agent must infer that this is a discovery/introspection call to run before or after a2a_auditor__scan_text/scan_file, rather than being told so.

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