prompt_leak_scanner__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 implies a read-only enumeration and discloses the grouping by category, but says nothing about whether this is a static catalog vs. dynamic detection, whether it requires configuration, or what a pattern entry contains — thin disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with the verb, scope, and result shape. Nothing redundant and nothing padded.

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 tool this is close to sufficient, and the category grouping is a useful hint about the return shape. But with no output schema and no annotations, the agent still cannot tell what fields each pattern record exposes (id, regex, severity, description), which is the main remaining 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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies no input is needed.

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 and resource ("List every credential/PII pattern this scanner detects") plus the shape of the result ("grouped by category"). The phrase "this scanner" scopes it to the prompt_leak_scanner namespace, which distinguishes it from the many sibling list_patterns tools, though it never names an alternative 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 statement of when to call this versus the scan_text/scan_file/scan_messages siblings. The use case (inspecting the detector catalog before or after a scan) is inferable from "patterns this scanner detects" but never spelled out, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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