Patch report for one system

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description need not restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: returns a comprehensive set of patch attributes, supports filtering and pagination, and is scoped to a single resource_id. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and result fields. It avoids redundant wording and earns its place with no filler.

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 (8 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the primary purpose, key return fields, filtering, and pagination. The parameter details live in the schema, and the description sufficiently orients the agent on what the report contains. A small gap is not explicitly noting that resource_id is required, but the schema marks it required.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning by mentioning resource_id, filtering, and pagination, but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Retrieves' and the specific resource: 'every patch applicable to a specific computer (by resource_id)'. It enumerates the returned fields (install status, approval status, severity, etc.) which distinguishes it from sibling list/report tools that cover all systems or patches.

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 phrase 'for one system' and 'specific computer' implies this tool is for per-system patch details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tools are mentioned, so usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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