List all AI/LLM security patterns the scanner can detect, grouped by category, 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.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are grouped by category and include custom rules from .guardbee/rules, which adds useful output context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or whether permissions are required, though 'List' strongly implies a safe read.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then adds grouping and custom rules. No wasted words; every clause earns its place.
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, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and how results are organized. It omits usage context and safety confirmation, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity. Adequate but not exhaustive.
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?
Zero parameters, so baseline is 4 per the rules. The schema is empty and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. No 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 'AI/LLM security patterns that the scanner can detect', plus grouping and custom rules. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list_patterns in other scanners, though the tool name prefix helps disambiguate. Clear but no sibling differentiation in description.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other list_patterns tools or scan_* tools. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The implied use case is pattern discovery, but no explicit context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.