report_update_compliance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only report by nature, but does not explicitly declare it as non-destructive or mention any permissions/rate limits.

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 well-structured with a purpose sentence, a use case, an Args block with explanations, and a Returns block. It is concise and front-loaded, though slightly longer than minimal.

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 no output schema, the description includes a Returns section describing the output structure (summary and devices), which adds completeness. Behavioral details like read-only are not explicit, but overall it covers purpose, parameters, and output.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in JSON schema), but the description fully explains all three parameters: min_missing (minimum missing updates), category (critical/security/other/any), and limit (max devices). This adds complete meaning beyond the schema.

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clearly states it shows a compliance overview of all Windows devices by update status, with a use case of identifying outdated/unpatched devices. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_device_update_status which likely targets individual devices.

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 includes 'Ideal um veraltete oder nicht gepatchte Geräte zu identifizieren' as a use case, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternative tools like get_device_update_status.

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