List systems with patch scan status

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 behavioral context by noting 'all systems' (broad scope) and support for filtering/pagination. However, it does not disclose potential performance implications of listing all systems, any rate limits, or that 'all systems' may require aggressive pagination. This is comparable to the get_calls example where annotations carry the safety burden and the description adds scope context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. The first sentence enumerates the key output fields, and the second covers filtering/pagination. No redundant or irrelevant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 optional parameters, no output schema), the description gives a solid overview of what is returned and mentions pagination. It lacks explicit guidance on typical use cases (e.g., checking vulnerable systems) or caveats about large result sets, but it covers the essential data categories and is supported by detailed schema descriptions. This is a useful, complete-enough summary for an agent to select the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (raw, page, resId, pageLimit, domainFilter, healthFilter, etc.) is already documented with its meaning and enums. The description only generically says 'Supports filtering and pagination' without adding new parameter-specific details. This matches the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the exact resource (all systems with patch scan status). It lists the key output fields (scan status, remarks, last scan times, agent details, patch health) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like patch_all_systems_list or patch_system_report. The scope ('all systems') and mention of filtering/pagination further clarify the tool's role.

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 (retrieving systems with patch scan details) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no 'when-not-to-use' or mention of alternates like patch_all_systems_list for broader system lists or patch_system_report for per-system detail. Sibling differentiation is left to the reader.

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