List patch deployment configurations

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about the returned data (status and per-target counts) and supported operations (filtering by status, pagination), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like permission requirements or result limits. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 core purpose, and contains no filler. Every clause adds value: the first sentence defines what is retrieved and the output highlights, the second sentence covers filtering and pagination.

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 list tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a solid high-level understanding: it explains the key return elements and available operations. Combined with the thorough schema, the tool is sufficiently described, though it leaves some return structure details unstated.

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 fully documents every parameter. The description merely restates that filtering by execution status and pagination are supported, adding no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('patch deployment configurations'), and adds unique scope by mentioning execution status and per-target counts. This distinguishes it from sibling patch tools like patch_deployment_policies_list, which likely focus on policies rather than status and counts.

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 provides clear context that this tool lists patch deployment configurations with status/filtering, making it evident when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, stopping short of a perfect score.

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