superops_assets_patches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates this is a read operation ('Get') but does not describe the return format, pagination, or any special behavior around 'pending patches' (e.g., whether it includes installed/failed statuses by default). The description is not misleading but adds only minimal context beyond the operation type.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a relatively simple filtered-listing tool, the description combined with a fully documented schema is sufficient. The tool has no output schema, but the description's mention of 'patch status and pending patches' implies the return type without needing to spell out every field. It could briefly note that it returns a list of patches, but the simplicity keeps this from being a major gap.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (assetId, status, severity), so the schema already handles parameter meaning. The description adds no extra context about how these parameters interact with 'patch status' beyond what is already in the schema, which is expected given the baseline of 3.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('patch status and pending patches') scoped to a specific asset. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like superops_assets_get (general asset details) and superops_assets_software (software inventory).

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 intended use case is implicitly clear: to retrieve patch information for a given asset. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like superops_assets_software or exclude other use cases, so it lacks explicit when-to-use/not-to-use guidance.

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