patch_management_cve_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only 'GET' operation but does not explicitly state side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The description adds minimal context beyond the endpoint and required params.

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 endpoint and purpose. It efficiently includes required parameters and allowed values without extra fluff. Every part serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description only highlights two parameters (patchId, source) and omits others like from_, size, showActive. The requiredness contradiction (source marked required in description but optional in schema) undermines completeness. Overall, it lacks sufficient detail for correct usage.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, but the description adds value by specifying allowed values for 'source' and stating it as required (though schema marks it optional with default null). There is a contradiction between description claiming 'source' as required and schema allowing null, which reduces clarity.

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 'Returns CVE info for a specific patch', specifying the verb and resource. It identifies required parameters and allowed values. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like patch_management_patch, which may also return patch-related info but not CVE-specific.

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 provides guidance on required parameters and allowed values for 'source', but it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context compared to siblings. It does not mention alternatives or conditions for using this tool.

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