audit_gap_auditor__list_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does convey one useful trait: it returns every check (exhaustive, unfiltered listing). It says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, how results are shaped, or whether pagination applies, leaving meaningful gaps for a discovery tool.

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, and the scope word 'every' is placed early. It is appropriately sized, though terse enough that the missing routing information is noticeable.

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?

Invocation is trivial with zero parameters, but there is no output schema, so the description should describe the shape of a returned 'check' (id, name, description) and it does not. Combined with the absence of usage guidance, it is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 no parameters, so the schema is empty and there is nothing for the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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?

The description states a specific verb (List) and resource (OWASP MCP08 audit-gap checks run by this auditor), which separates it from the many other *__list_patterns siblings from different auditors. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting those siblings, but an agent can identify that it enumerates this auditor's own check catalog.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the sibling scan_text/scan_file/scan_directory tools, nor any prerequisite or ordering guidance. The discovery-then-scan workflow is only inferable from the tool family convention, which is weak guidance.

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