List applicable patches (threat view)

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about scope ('applicable patches') and returned fields (severity, counts, approval status), but it does not describe pagination behavior, default ordering, or other nuances. This is adequate but not rich.

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 action and resource, and lists key return fields efficiently. No redundancy or filler words; every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description provides the key return fields, scope, and filtering/pagination capability. It does not explain defaults or edge cases, but the detailed schema covers parameters, making this sufficiently complete for agent invocation.

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%, with each of the 21 parameters individually described. The tool description only says 'extensive filtering' generically, adding no specific parameter-level meaning beyond what is already 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and clearly identifies the resource ('patches applicable to managed systems') and context ('from the threats module'). It also lists key fields returned, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like patch_all_patches_list.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need applicable patches from the threats module with filtering/pagination. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it does not fully meet the 'explicit when/when-not' threshold.

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