get_device_os_patch_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output includes pending, installed, and failed patches, but does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. The description lacks sufficient behavioral context for a tool with zero annotations.

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, clear sentence of 17 words with no redundancy or irrelevant information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently covers the key output categories.

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?

The description explains the output categories (pending, installed, failed patches), which is adequate for a simple status tool. However, with no output schema, details on return format, pagination, or error handling are missing, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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% for the single parameter (device_id: 'NinjaOne device ID'). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get the OS patch status for a specific device, showing pending, installed, and failed patches'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('OS patch status'), and scope ('specific device'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_device or get_device_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 implies its usage context (patch status for a device) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. With multiple sibling tools, more guidance would be beneficial.

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