context_oversharing_auditor__list_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, but this is a zero-parameter, read-only enumeration tool, so the safety burden is minimal and the 'List' verb conveys the non-mutating nature. It still omits any note on output shape, whether the catalog covers all MCP10 checks or a subset, or whether the list is static.

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, though 'this auditor runs' is slightly indirect phrasing that could be tightened.

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 simple listing tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what will be listed, which is the essential information. However, with no output schema to define the return, the description could have sketched the shape of the returned check entries and it does not.

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 to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 a specific resource ('every OWASP MCP10 context-oversharing check this auditor runs'), naming the domain that separates it from the many sibling list_patterns tools. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with context_oversharing_auditor__scan_text/scan_file, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery call to see which checks exist before invoking a scan, but the description never says when to use it, when not to, or that scan_text/scan_file are the alternatives for actually running the checks.

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