tool_poisoning_scanner__list_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the scope of what is enumerated (phrase rules plus sink rules), which is useful. It does not say whether this is a read-only, side-effect-free lookup or what the returned entries contain, leaving the behavioral picture thin for an annotation-free tool.

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 the two concrete rule categories. Every word 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 catalog tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should indicate what an entry looks like (pattern id, name, description) or whether IDs can be reused with the scan tools. It conveys scope but not the shape or downstream use of the output.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. Nothing in the schema is left unexplained.

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 specific resource (the detection patterns/rules this scanner uses), and it names the two rule categories — description-injection phrases and confused-deputy sinks. This clearly separates it from the sibling scan_text/scan_file/scan_directory tools, which run scans rather than enumerate the catalog.

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?

The intent of listing the rules is implied — inspect coverage before or after scanning — but the description never says when to call this instead of tool_poisoning_scanner__scan_text or the other list_patterns tools in sibling scanners. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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