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 discloses return content (each check carries its OWASP MCP Top 10 tags), which is useful, but it does not state that the call is read-only, requires no auth, or has side effects, and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 that names the verb first, then the four check categories, then the tagging detail. No filler and nothing 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?

For a zero-parameter enumeration tool with no annotations or output schema, the description conveys what will be listed and that results are OWASP-tagged. Only the exact fields returned (e.g., pattern IDs vs. human-readable names) are left unspecified, a minor gap.

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 of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to document beyond what the empty schema already shows.

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 the verb (List) and the specific resource: the MCP config, agent skill, shadow-MCP discovery, and cross-server shadowing checks for this auditor, plus the OWASP tagging. It is clearer than a bare 'list patterns', though it never names a sibling to distinguish itself from the many other *_list_patterns tools.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. With roughly thirty sibling list_patterns tools in the environment, the description leaves the agent to infer from the tool name alone that this enumerates this auditor's checks rather than another auditor's.

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