List systems with patch health

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive, and the description aligns by stating 'Retrieves'. The description adds useful context about the scope ('all managed systems') and the specific data returned (health status categories, counts by type/severity, last scan/patch times), which goes beyond the structured 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 two concise sentences: the first states the main purpose and key data fields, the second mentions filtering and pagination. There is no filler 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 tool with no output schema and 9 optional filters, the description covers the essential return values (health status, counts, times) and the scope. However, it omits the 'Unknown' health status category that appears in the healthFilter enum, and it doesn't enumerate the filter options beyond saying 'filtering'.

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 9 parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description only mentions generic 'filtering and pagination' without adding parameter-specific context, so it contributes little beyond the 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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieves' and clearly identifies the resource as 'all managed systems' with patch health status, plus additional data like patch counts and scan times. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like patch_all_patches_list (which lists patches) and patch_system_report (which likely focuses on a single system).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as patch_system_report or patch_summary. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended use cases, leaving the agent to infer.

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