List patch deployment policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds value by detailing the fields returned and the support for pagination. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not disclose default pagination behavior or response structure.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose and key details. No fluff or redundancy; every word adds value.

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 tool is simple, annotations cover safety, and the schema explains all parameters. The description covers the essential return fields and pagination. It stops short of describing ordering or total count, but that is not critical. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a list operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'Supports pagination' but does not add substantive meaning beyond the existing parameter descriptions for page and pageLimit. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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' with the resource 'patch deployment policies (deployment templates)', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like patch_summary or patch_approval_settings. It also lists concrete return fields (IDs, names, default flag, creation/modification metadata), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 by specifying what the tool retrieves, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Given the context of similar patch management tools, this is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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