oauth_auditor__list_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral information beyond the name: the result is a complete enumeration ('every pattern') and is 'grouped by category'. What it does not say is whether entries are names only or include descriptions/severities, or that the call is a safe static read.

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 front-loaded sentence with the distinguishing domain qualifier in the first few words and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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-param, non-destructive listing tool with no output schema, this is close to sufficient: the agent knows what comes back (patterns, grouped by category). Only the absence of any link to the scan_* siblings and of a sense of output shape keeps it from a 5.

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 to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly signals that no filtering or scoping input is expected.

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' applied to a concrete resource: 'OAuth/token-handling pattern this auditor detects'. The domain qualifier ('OAuth/token-handling') distinguishes it from the many sibling *_list_patterns tools belonging to other auditors, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of the companion oauth_auditor__scan_text/scan_file/scan_directory tools it logically precedes. That a discovery call should come before scanning is only implied by the verb 'List' and the zero-parameter schema.

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