mvs_list_missing_patches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It establishes a non-mutating list operation and the estate-wide scope, which is useful, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, aggregation, or any performance implications. It is adequate but minimal.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb, resource, and scope in immediate order, making it easy for an agent to scan and understand.

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 tool's low complexity, fully described parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool. It lacks explicit alternative routing, but that is a minor gap for a read-only listing operation.

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 parameters (limit, sorts, offset, filters, include_fields) are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the overall scope, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('List'), names the exact resource ('missing patches'), and defines scope ('across the whole estate'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mvs_list_vulnerabilities, mvs_list_assets, and per-asset operations.

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 phrase 'across the whole estate' gives clear context for when to use this tool: for estate-wide missing-patch discovery rather than asset-specific or vulnerability-specific queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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