patch_management_patch

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states it returns a list of patches and lists some required parameters. No information on pagination, rate limits, error conditions, or response format is given.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, required parameters, and allowed values. No unnecessary information.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is quite sparse. It does not explain the return structure, pagination behavior, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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?

The description adds value by noting that searchQueries and softwareType are required and that softwareType accepts only APP or OS. However, for the other five parameters (q, from, size, patchIds, externalPatchIds), no additional meaning is provided beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 returns a list of patches via GET. It includes the endpoint and specifies that searchQueries and softwareType are required. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like patch_management_patch_1 or patch_management_cve_info.

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 indicates that searchQueries and softwareType are required, implying their necessity for meaningful use. However, the schema marks all parameters as optional, creating confusion. No guidance on when not to use this tool or alternative tools is provided.

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