get_unscheduled_errata

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

No annotations are provided. The description states that it returns an errata list but does not disclose behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, error handling, pagination, or side effects. The constraint on system_id is noted but insufficient for full behavioral transparency.

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 concise: three short sentences covering purpose, input, and output. No extraneous words and information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity (1 required parameter, with output schema), the description covers the essential information: input requirement and return type. It does not mention potential limitations like pagination or default behavior, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need for detailed return documentation.

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?

The schema has one integer parameter (system_id) with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying 'numeric system_id only', reinforcing the type constraint. However, it does not explain the parameter's purpose beyond its name, so it adds moderate value.

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 action (list), the resource (unscheduled errata), and the scope (for one system). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_system_updates or list_systems_needing_update_for_cve by specifying 'unscheduled errata'.

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 provides a constraint (numeric system_id only) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. The input constraint is helpful but lacks context for selection among siblings.

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