get_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' and mentions filtering options, which repeats the schema. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, how filters combine (AND/OR), or the response format. This is a minimal disclosure insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 front-loads the core action ('List vulnerability detection patterns') and then lists the filtering dimensions. There is no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and filter options, but lacks critical contextual details such as output format, pagination, or filter combination behavior. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left guessing about return values. For a simple listing tool, it is adequate but not complete; more information about how filters interact would be beneficial.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter clearly described (e.g., 'Filter by CWE ID'). The description merely restates the existence of filters without adding new meaning. No additional semantics like value formats, combination rules, or wildcard behavior are added. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already documents parameters.

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 states a specific action ('List vulnerability detection patterns') and names the resource. It clearly indicates filtering capabilities, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform actions like generating fixes or scanning files. The verb 'List' and object 'vulnerability detection patterns' are unambiguous.

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 the tool is for retrieving patterns with optional filters, which is clear context. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. The sibling 'list_fix_templates' could confuse an agent, and the description does not distinguish between listing patterns vs. fix templates. Usage scenario is implied but not spelled out.

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