Lists AI/LLM security patterns the scanner can detect, grouped by category and including custom rules loaded from .guardbee/rules.
List all AI/LLM security patterns that the scanner can detect, grouped by category (including any custom rules loaded from .guardbee/rules)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does signal the operation is a safe read-only listing and adds useful context that custom rules from `.guardbee/rules` are merged in. It does not state the return shape beyond 'grouped by category', whether counts/IDs are included, or what happens when no custom rules directory exists.
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 resource, scope, and grouping behavior; nothing redundant or padded.
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, the description does the work of indicating what comes back (categories with patterns, plus custom rules). That is adequate for a zero-parameter lister, though a hint about entry fields or whether categories are fixed would make it fully self-contained.
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 the baseline is 4. The schema is trivially complete and the description adds the only meaningful semantic note — that output includes custom rules loaded from `.guardbee/rules`.
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 all AI/LLM security patterns that the scanner can detect'), which is clearer than a bare 'list patterns'. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling `*__list_patterns` tools (prompt_injection_scanner, mcp_server_auditor, memory_poisoning_scanner, etc.), so an agent choosing among them has to infer that this one covers AI/LLM code patterns.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With over a dozen competing `list_patterns` siblings, the description gives the agent nothing to route on beyond the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.