memory_poisoning_scanner__list_patterns

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the result is a complete enumeration grouped by category, which implies a safe read operation, but it says nothing about whether the list is static or configurable, how large it may be, or what a pattern entry contains.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the scope, with the output organization ('grouped by category') appended efficiently. No filler.

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 should do more: it omits what a pattern record looks like (id, name, severity, description) and whether categories are fixed. For a zero-parameter listing tool it is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the payload.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 precisely scoped resource ('every memory-write and memory-readback pattern this scanner detects'). The domain qualifier distinguishes it from the many other *_list_patterns siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 enumerates detection coverage before running scan_text/scan_file, but the description never states when to call it versus those scan tools, nor any preconditions. No exclusions or routing guidance is given.

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