mcp_config_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 one useful return detail — entries come with OWASP MCP Top 10 tags — and 'List' signals a non-mutating read, but it never explicitly states read-only behavior, output shape, or whether the catalog is static versus environment-derived.

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 compact sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler. The four enumerated categories make it denser than necessary but each item maps to a real scanner in the sibling list, so nothing 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?

With no output schema, the description should say more about what the list items look like and how to feed them into the scan tools. Naming the OWASP tag payload helps, but for a discovery entry point into a large auditor server the bridge to the actual scan calls is missing.

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 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. No misleading parameter hints are present.

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 enumerates the exact resource categories this server covers: MCP config, agent skill, shadow-MCP discovery, and cross-server shadowing checks. The scoping to this auditor's domains distinguishes it from the many other *_list_patterns siblings, though it never states the identifier form returned.

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 run before scanning, but the description never says when to call it, nor points to the scan tools (scan_config_text, scan_skill_text, discover_shadow_mcp) that consume these patterns. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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