System health policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no safety disclosure is needed. The description adds value by specifying the return contents: severity-based thresholds, vulnerable/highly vulnerable classification, and advanced settings. This goes beyond the bare annotations and sets expectations for what the response will contain.

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 well-structured sentence, front-loaded with the verb. Every clause adds meaningful information about the policy being retrieved, with 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?

This is a zero-parameter getter with no output schema, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining return values. It sufficiently enumerates the key components of the health policy (thresholds per severity, vulnerability classification, advanced settings), making the tool's behavior fully understood.

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, and the schema has no properties (100% coverage by default). Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate since there is no parameter burden for the description to carry.

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 a specific resource ('configured system health policy'), then details the exact contents: missing-patch count thresholds per severity, vulnerability classification, and advanced settings. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling patch-related tools by naming the specific policy being fetched.

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 clear usage: use this tool when you need the system health policy configuration. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like patch_approval_settings or patch_view_config, but the dedicated getter nature and clear resource naming provide sufficient context without needing exclusions.

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