ninja_query_os_patches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and only indicates a read query. It does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens on empty results. For a filtering-capable query, more behavioral context is needed.

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 extraneous words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 has 5 parameters, no required params, and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It covers the core function but omits guidance on pagination (cursor/pageSize) and expected response format. For a simple query tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond mentioning statuses that match the status parameter. It does not elaborate on df, pageSize, cursor, or type.

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 verb 'Query' and the resource 'OS patches', and specifies the relevant statuses (pending, failed, rejected). It also notes 'across all managed devices', which effectively distinguishes it from per-device siblings like ninja_get_device_os_patches.

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 a broad query across devices, which hints at use cases, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as ninja_get_device_os_patches or other query tools. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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