Patch Approvals Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: that the upstream record has no severity field so severity_breakdown buckets as 'unspecified', and advises using CVE IDs to judge urgency. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently packs essential details about the approval structure and severity handling without waste.

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 output schema exists, description does not need to detail return format. It covers the main behavioral aspects but lacks parameter documentation. Overall, it is fairly complete for a read tool with good annotations, but missing param info leaves a gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters (status, limit, output_format), the description must explain them. It does not: status usage is implied but not explicit (e.g., possible values), limit and output_format are unmentioned. The description compensates somewhat by explaining output fields, but parameter semantics are poorly covered.

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 tool's purpose: 'Summarize patch approvals awaiting decision.' It also explains the fields (title, version, CVE ids, manual_approval) and distinguishes from sibling 'decide_patch_approval' by focusing on summarization versus decision-making.

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 reading summaries of pending approvals, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'decide_patch_approval' or other sibling tools. However, the context is clear, and the description provides enough detail for appropriate selection.

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