prompt_leak_scanner__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, and it does disclose one behavioral trait beyond the name: results are 'grouped by category.' It is silent on read-only nature, permission requirements, and result size, though for a zero-argument catalog tool the practical risk is low.

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 no filler; the scope qualifier ('every credential/PII pattern this scanner detects') and the output shape ('grouped by category') both earn their 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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source for return shape, and it supplies just one detail (categorization). It does not indicate what each entry contains (pattern name, category, severity, regex) or how large the catalog is, leaving a modest but real gap for a discovery tool.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4. No parameter claims are made or 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 ('List') and a precise resource ('every credential/PII pattern this scanner detects'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling scan_text/scan_file/scan_directory tools that perform detection rather than enumeration. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many identically named list_patterns tools in other scanner namespaces, so the reader must rely on the tool name for scoping.

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 this vs scan_*' statement or prerequisite guidance. The listing nature of the tool makes the usage self-evident (introspect detectable pattern categories before or alongside a scan), which qualifies as implied usage, but nothing is stated outright and no alternatives are named.

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