get_patch_definitions

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool is read-only (though 'get' implies it), does not describe the return format (no output schema), and does not mention pagination behavior beyond the 'first' parameter's default. The mention of included fields gives some insight but omits critical details like response structure and any limits.

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 that front-loads the purpose and key result fields. No redundant wording; the business requirement is an optional addendum. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

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 low-complexity tool with fully documented schema, the description is incomplete primarily in usage context. It lacks explicit guidance on when to select this over siblings, does not mention read-only behavior, and provides no details on output shape beyond the three fields. With no annotations or output schema, the description leaves the agent to infer key operational aspects.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (cveId and first) are already documented with examples and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions CVE ID as a filter but does not clarify if other conditions exist. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 function: searching patch definitions (catalog) by conditions such as CVE ID, mentioning included fields (severity, release date, super-seed). It distinguishes the resource (patch catalog) from sibling tools like get_cve_findings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. the many sibling get_* tools. The parenthetical business requirement (EOL/패치 대응) provides some context but does not direct the agent to choose this over alternatives or state exclusions. With 21 siblings, this is a significant gap.

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