context_oversharing_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 full burden. It does disclose that this is a pure enumeration of the checks the auditor runs (a safe, read-only listing), but says nothing about the shape of each returned entry, whether the list is static, or how the patterns map to the scan tools.

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. The scope qualifier ('this auditor') is placed where it matters, and no sentence is wasted.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the agent still has to guess what each returned pattern looks like (IDs, descriptions, severity, categories) and how to feed a chosen pattern into the scan_* tools. The description is adequate but does not close that loop.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly spends no words on non-existent 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('every OWASP MCP10 context-oversharing check this auditor runs'), which clearly separates it from the scan_text/scan_file siblings that perform scanning. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the name-plus-description pairing leaves little ambiguity.

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 enumerate available checks before or instead of scanning. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of when not to use it, and no pointer to the scan_* siblings as the alternative once a pattern is chosen.

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