ninja_get_device_os_patches

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

The description only states what the tool does but discloses no behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format). With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, which it does not meet.

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, efficient sentence with no extraneous content. It conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary detail.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not fill gaps such as return format, pagination, or field details. For a tool with three parameters, this is insufficient context for an agent.

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%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, e.g., it lists status values but does not explain type. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (Get), the resource (OS patches), and the specific statuses (pending, failed, or rejected) for a device. It is unambiguous and directly indicates the tool's functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ninja_query_os_patches (multi-device) or ninja_get_device_installed_os_patches. The agent is not informed about exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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