Per-system patch details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: each record represents one system with a nested patches array, clarifying the response shape. It also notes support for extensive filtering and pagination, though it doesn't address auth, rate limits, or default pagination behavior.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action 'Retrieves systems with their per-system patch details' and includes key qualifiers. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 high parameter count (19) and no output schema, the description provides essential context about the response shape (nested patches per system) and key fields. It lacks details on default sorting, pagination limits, or error handling, but the schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety, making it complete enough for a filtered list tool.

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 fully documents all 19 parameters. The description enumerates some key fields (status, approval status, install errors, installed time) but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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 systems with per-system patch details, listing specific fields like status, approval status, install errors, and installed time. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the per-system (resource_id) record structure with a nested patches array, 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?

The description implies usage through its focus on per-system patch details and mention of extensive filtering and pagination, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like patch_system_report or threats_system_report. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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