list_pii_patterns_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It correctly indicates a read operation, but it fails to describe the output format (e.g., pattern names, IDs), potential size of results, or any side effects. The minimal description leaves some ambiguity.

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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and directly to the point.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no nested objects) and the absence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's basic function. However, it could be improved by mentioning the nature of the returned list (e.g., pattern names and IDs) to provide full context.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, the baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, but it is clear that no arguments are required.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all registered PII detection patterns'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'add_pii_pattern_tool' and 'scrub_text_tool' by explicitly stating it lists patterns.

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 description implies usage for viewing patterns, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but incomplete.

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