ise_openapi_patch_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it lists installed patches with the endpoint path - it does not disclose pagination behavior, whether this is a read-only safe operation, response shape, or any side effects. The page/size parameters hint at pagination but the description says nothing about it.

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 short (one line), which is concise, but it packs limited useful information. The '[Patch]' prefix and endpoint path are informational but not particularly valuable for an agent deciding what this tool does. It's minimal rather than efficiently informative.

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?

For a list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It doesn't explain what the response looks like, how pagination works, whether the list is empty-safe, or any filtering capabilities beyond what page/size imply. The deployment targeting is explained but the overall behavior (what patches look like, how to interpret results) is absent.

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 coverage is only 33% with 3 parameters, and the description adds value only for the 'deployment' parameter by explaining it accepts name, slug, or number and pointing to ise_list_deployments. The page and size parameters have defaults but no semantic explanation in either schema or description. The description adds some value for deployment but leaves page/size semantics implicit.

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 says '[Patch] List installed patches (GET /api/v1/patch)' which indicates this is a list operation for installed patches, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ise_openapi_patch_install and ise_openapi_patch_rollback. However, it lacks detail about what exactly is returned or any meaningful scope clarification beyond the endpoint path.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't explain the relationship to patch_install/patch_rollback siblings or the hotpatch_list tool, nor does it mention any prerequisites. The deployment parameter description does point to ise_list_deployments for choices, which is a small nod to usage, but there's no when/when-not guidance.

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