Patch module summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Retrieves' is consistent. It adds context about the scope of data returned (e.g., severity breakdown, DB update status), which is useful, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as response size, performance, or auth requirements.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence lists all key return components without fluff or repetition. It is both concise and information-dense, earning 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive list of returned content, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. It could be more explicit about the response structure (e.g., single object vs. nested), but the enumeration covers the essentials.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema covers everything. Per the baseline, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description complements by specifying the categories of information returned, which aids interpretation of the output.

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 resource ('patch module summary') and enumerates the exact contents (installed/missing/applicable counts, severity breakdown, etc.), making its purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like patch_scan_details or patch_system_report.

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 listing what the summary contains—an agent can infer to use it when such aggregate patch data is needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools or any exclusions, leaving room for ambiguity.

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