patch.status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool is for 'inspection,' implying it is non-destructive, but it does not confirm idempotency, safety, or side effects. It also does not explain whether the tool requires a specific session mode or whether it modifies any state. The lack of behavioral detail makes it insufficient for an agent to understand risks or constraints.

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 extremely concise at only four words, which is efficient for a simple tool. It front-loads the verb and resource. However, for a tool with two required parameters and zero schema coverage, it may be too terse, sacrificing clarity for brevity. Nonetheless, no unnecessary words are present.

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 complexity of the domain (binary analysis) and the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. The agent cannot fully determine the tool's behavior, parameter meanings, or return values. Among many sibling tools, the description does not help an agent choose or invoke this tool correctly without additional context.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameter semantics. The description names the resource ('address') but does not explain the address parameter's type (integer vs. string) or what it represents (e.g., memory address, file offset, or function name). The session_id parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving the agent to infer its role from context. The description adds minimal value over the bare 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 'Inspect patch availability at address.' clearly states the verb ('inspect') and the resource ('patch availability at address'). However, it is somewhat vague because it does not explain what 'patch availability' means in the context of binary analysis (e.g., whether it refers to binary patches, security patches, or something else). Among sibling tools like patch.assemble, patch.convert_to_nop, etc., it is distinguishable as a read-only inspection, but the lack of detail reduces clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other patch-related tools (e.g., patch.assemble, patch.convert_to_nop, or analysis.status). The description does not specify prerequisites, such as needing an active session or an already open binary, nor does it indicate whether the address must be valid or what happens if no patch information is available. No context signals or sibling names are leveraged to provide alternatives.

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