secret_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 burden, but the operation is a zero-parameter enumeration with low risk, and 'list all ... that the scanner can detect' adequately conveys that it is a read-only catalog dump. It stops short of describing what a pattern entry contains or how patterns relate to the scan tools.

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 tight sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb. It is efficient but so terse that it omits routing information that would have cost only a few words.

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 simple catalog tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least hint at the shape of the returned records (pattern names, categories, IDs usable in scan output). Without that, an agent knows the intent but not what it gets back.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming that the listing is unfiltered ('all').

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 resource ('all secret patterns that the scanner can detect'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many sibling list_patterns tools belonging to other scanners; only the tool name prefix carries that disambiguation.

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 guidance on when to call this versus secret_scanner__scan_text/scan_file/scan_directory, nor any mention that this is a discovery/introspection call typically run before or alongside a scan. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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