get_patch_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully handles transparency. It explains the data provenance (source='arg' from patchassessmentresources table), defines the not_evaluable state for deallocated/stopped VMs, and clarifies that pendingUpdateCount is null (unknown) rather than zero. This goes well beyond a typical description.

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 clear opening sentence, followed by important caveats. It is concise without extraneous information, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers edge cases (not_evaluable), provenance, and parameter defaults. The tool is fully described for its intended use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., default status_filter returns pending, excludes not_evaluable), but the schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter. No significant additional meaning is provided.

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 'Report per-VM patch/update posture from Azure Resource Graph patch assessments.' It provides a specific verb (report) and resource (per-VM patch/update posture), and distinguishes from siblings like check_compliance and query_resources by focusing on patch assessment data.

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 for checking patch posture but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over its siblings (check_compliance, query_resources). No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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