get_patch_applicability

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. It mentions 'sensor-based' but fails to state explicitly that this is a read-only query, what data is returned (beyond a list), or any error/rate-limit behavior. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, more transparency is expected.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. The parenthetical '(업무요건: 패치 적용 대상 파악)' adds business context that is not directly useful for invocation and could be omitted, but it does not harm focus. Overall efficient with minimal 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?

For a simple tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate: it states what the tool returns conceptually (list of applicable patches) and the basis (sensor). However, '센서 기반' is left unexplained and there is no mention of pagination or result format, which could be relevant but is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already documents the single parameter fully (name and example), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description states a specific verb (조회/query), a precise resource (적용 가능한 패치 목록), and a clear qualifier (지정한 컴퓨터 그룹, sensor-based). This distinguishes it from sibling patch tools like get_patch_definitions (definition list) and get_patch_deployment (deployment status).

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 — when you need to know which patches are applicable to a computer group — but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other patch-related siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer the context, but no direct routing guidance is given.

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