List all applicable patches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the returned data (counts, statuses) and supports filtering/pagination. However, it does not disclose details like default page size, server caps, or result formatting beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Retrieves the complete list of patches') followed by the return fields and capabilities. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 12 optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently indicates what the tool returns (patches with counts/statuses) and its filtering/pagination capabilities. It does not mention default page size or enumerations, but the schema covers those. It is complete enough for agent selection and invocation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 12 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only general mention of 'filtering and pagination' without specifying parameter syntax or relationships. No additional semantics beyond schema.

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 'Retrieves the complete list of patches applicable to managed systems' – a specific verb and resource – and enumerates the key data fields (per-patch installed/missing/failed counts, severity, approval status, download status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like patch_all_systems_list (systems, not patches) and patch_all_patch_details (single-patch details).

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 for obtaining a complete patch list with filtering/pagination, but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. Sibling names like patch_summary or patch_downloaded_patches_list are not mentioned, so an agent must infer context. This is adequate but not explicit.

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