List supported patches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful scope context (not just applicable-to-current-systems) and mentions filter/pagination capabilities, but doesn't disclose return format or any potential quirks. This is consistent with annotations and adds moderate value.

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 one substantive sentence plus a short second sentence on filtering/pagination. Every word adds value, is front-loaded with the core purpose, and avoids redundancy with schema details.

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 read-only list tool with rich schema and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the catalog scope and key result fields (severity, approval, download status). It could briefly mention pagination defaults or response shape, but overall it is complete enough given the supporting schema and annotations.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptive schema entries with full details on enums and meanings, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter information, placing this at the baseline 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the catalog of all patches supported and manageable by Endpoint Central, with specifics on severity, approval status, and download status. It also distinguishes scope by clarifying this is not just patches applicable to current systems, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this for the full supported patch catalog rather than system-specific patch lists. However, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, and no alternatives are named.

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