superops_assets_patches

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation and 'for a specific asset' scopes the call, but no further behavioral traits are disclosed, such as filter behavior, pagination, or response shape. It is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, the resource, and the scope without filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, leaving optional filter details to the schema.

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 3-parameter read tool, the description minimally explains the return concept ('patch status and pending patches'), but without an output schema it does not clarify the response structure, how statuses are represented, or how the status/severity filters affect results. It is sufficient but leaves clear gaps.

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?

All three parameters are already described in the input schema, including the status enum and severity list, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating that the operation targets 'a specific asset,' which maps directly to assetId.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('patch status and pending patches') scoped to 'a specific asset.' This is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like superops_assets_get and superops_assets_software, which target general asset details or installed software.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mention of alternative tools. The only implicit signal is 'for a specific asset,' so an agent must infer when this should be selected among the many asset-related siblings.

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