agent_graph_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 burden. It discloses one behavioral trait beyond the name: results are 'grouped by category', which hints at return structure. It does not state that this is a non-mutating read with no inputs, nor anything about result size or pagination, for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and the scope, with zero padding. Every clause ('dangerous-capability', 'end of a delegation path', 'grouped by category') adds distinct 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is listed, the domain it applies to, and the grouping of results — enough for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around whether the listing is static/read-only and roughly how large the response is, given no output schema to fall back on.

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 document; the baseline for a no-arg tool is 4. Nothing in the description misrepresents or adds confusion about inputs.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus a well-scoped resource: the dangerous-capability rules this specific auditor (agent graph / delegation path) checks. The phrase 'at the end of a delegation path' uniquely anchors it to the agent-graph auditor, distinguishing it from the many generic list_patterns siblings. It stops short of naming a specific sibling tool to contrast with.

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?

Usage is implied — an agent would call this to learn what the auditor detects before or after scanning — but there is no explicit 'use this when' statement, no mention of pairing with agent_graph_auditor__scan_text/scan_file/scan_directory, and no exclusions. Adequate but leaves the workflow to inference.

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