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 discloses the content of the list (injection phrases and confused-deputy sink rules), but says nothing about the operation being read-only, pagination, or return structure. Behavioral risk is low for a static enumeration, but the disclosure is thin.

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 first and zero filler. Nothing in it is redundant with the name.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description would ideally sketch what is returned (phrase IDs, rule metadata, grouping). It states the subject matter of the list but not its shape, leaving a gap for a tool whose entire value is its return payload.

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 of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus a concrete resource: 'description-injection phrase and confused-deputy sink rule this scanner detects'. This clearly separates it from the sibling scan_text/scan_file/scan_directory tools, though it never names those alternatives 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?

Usage is only implied – an agent can infer this is the way to enumerate what the scanner detects, but there is no statement of when to call it versus running a scan or another auditor's list_patterns tool.

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