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 behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait beyond the schema: results are 'grouped by category'. However, it says nothing about whether the catalog is static or configurable, its size, or the shape of a pattern entry, 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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and ending with the one structural detail that matters (category grouping). Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only listing this is close to adequate, and the grouping note partially compensates for the absent output schema. Still, an agent cannot tell what a returned pattern record contains (id, name, severity, remediation), which is the main thing the description would need to add in the absence of a return schema.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly avoids inventing parameter language.

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?

The description gives a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('every OAuth/token-handling pattern this auditor detects'), scoped to this auditor rather than generic patterns. It contrasts implicitly with the scan_text/scan_file/scan_directory siblings by being a catalog listing rather than a scan, though it never states that contrast outright.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The natural use case (discover which patterns exist before or alongside running scan_file/scan_directory) is left entirely to inference, matching the MID calibration case where 'no when-to-use' earned a 2.

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