Patch approval settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description's 'Retrieves'. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining exactly what setting is being retrieved (automatic vs manual approval), but does not go beyond that to discuss side effects or permissions.

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 with the verb 'Retrieves' and the resource immediately following. No unnecessary words or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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, no-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description fully explains the purpose and the semantics of the output. No additional context is needed to understand when or why to use this tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining what the returned setting represents, which exceeds the baseline and provides value beyond the empty 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 a specific verb 'Retrieves' and clearly identifies the resource 'current patch approval settings'. It further clarifies the semantic distinction between automatic and manual approval, making it easy to distinguish from sibling patch-related tools.

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?

Implied usage context is clear: use when you need to check the current patch approval mode. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls slightly short of a perfect guideline score.

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