elicitation_auditor__list_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'List' does make clear this is a non-mutating enumeration rather than a scan. However, it says nothing about whether calling it triggers any analysis, whether the result includes pattern IDs, descriptions, or severities, or how large the listing may be — and no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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 eight-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scoped by 'this auditor'. Nothing is padded and nothing is buried.

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?

The schema is trivially empty and there are no annotations or output schema, so the description is the only source of information about the result — and it doesn't say what a 'check' looks like in the response. For a catalog-listing tool an agent typically needs that to chain into scan calls; the definition is minimally viable 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 the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to convey. The description correctly implies a no-argument, whole-catalog listing.

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 elicitation check this auditor runs'), which scopes it to the elicitation_auditor family rather than the dozens of sibling list_patterns tools. It stops short of distinguishing a check inventory from the sibling scan_text/scan_file/scan_directory operations, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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, likely prior to scanning. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of when to prefer scan_text or scan_directory instead, and no prerequisites. Adequate but left to inference.

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