Retrieve all dangerous-capability rules checked at the end of a delegation path, grouped by category, to audit agent graphs for security risks.
List every dangerous-capability rule this auditor looks for at the end of a delegation path, grouped by category
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses scope ("at the end of a delegation path") and return shape ("grouped by category"), which implies a read-only, side-effect-free enumeration, but it never states that explicitly nor covers anything about ordering or volume.
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 filler, redundant restatement of the name, or hedging. Every clause (scope, grouping) adds 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 zero-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential scope and the category-grouped result shape. It stops short of detailing the rule entry structure, which is the only material omission given no output schema exists to carry it.
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 per the baseline there is nothing for the description to clarify; the phrase "grouped by category" is a bonus. No parameter-related gap exists.
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 ("dangerous-capability rule this auditor looks for at the end of a delegation path"), with the qualifier "this auditor" cleanly separating it from the ~15 other list_patterns/list_* siblings. An agent can identify it without opening the empty 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?
It names no explicit alternative and gives no when/when-not condition, but usage is strongly implied: call this to enumerate the agent-graph rules rather than the sibling scan_text/scan_file/scan_directory tools. Adequate but leaves the routing inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.