List every unbounded consumption and denial-of-wallet pattern this auditor detects, grouped by category. Use it to review coverage before auditing MCP traffic.
List every Unbounded Consumption / denial-of-wallet pattern this auditor detects, grouped by category
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return grouping behavior ('grouped by category') and the read-only nature implied by 'List', but does not state side effects, auth requirements, pagination, or whether it triggers any detection logic.
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 that says what is listed, for which auditor, and how results are grouped. There is no redundant or wasted wording.
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 listing tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the call returns: every detected pattern grouped by category. It could say more about output format or intended workflow, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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 there are no parameter semantics to document. The empty input schema is fully consistent with the description, and baseline for zero-param tools is 4.
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 patterns detected by this auditor, grouped by category. It clearly distinguishes this auditor's pattern listing from scan_text/scan_file/scan_directory by name, though it does not explicitly contrast those siblings.
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 implied by the verb 'List' and the resource 'patterns', so an agent can infer this is for cataloging known detections rather than scanning. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative such as scan_text/scan_file for actual scanning.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.