elicitation_auditor__list_patterns

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it does convey that the listing is exhaustive ("every ... check") for this auditor only. It says nothing about side effects, permissions, ordering, or what a listed check looks like, so a read-only, low-risk profile must be assumed rather than stated.

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 clause with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. Nothing to trim.

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 and no annotations, the description is the only source of information, and it omits the shape of a returned check (name, ID, severity, category) that an agent would need to chain into a scan call. Adequate for a trivial zero-arg lister, but not 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 zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No missing parameter documentation exists to compensate for.

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?

Specific verb ("List") plus a bounded resource ("every elicitation check this auditor runs"). The domain noun "elicitation" separates it from the many sibling list_patterns tools belonging to other auditors, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with elicitation_auditor__scan_text/file/directory.

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 at all: nothing says to call this before running a scan, or that it is a discovery/introspection aid. The family naming convention lets a careful agent infer the scan-vs-list split, but the description itself provides none of it.

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