netbox_get_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is an authenticated OPTIONS request, which implies read-only introspection and signals authentication requirements. While it does not explicitly state 'no side effects', the 'get field definitions' framing is clear enough for this tool 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 main purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded in the first sentence. The Args block is a bit redundant with the schema but still adds example and format details. No filler or misleading content—compact and purposeful.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so return-value details are already covered. The description supplies everything else: what it returns, how it authenticates, when to use it, and how to obtain valid endpoint values. Nothing critical is missing.

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 compensate. It explains that endpoint is an 'app.endpoint' string, provides a concrete example ('dcim.devices'), and directs the agent to netbox_list_endpoints for valid values. This fully disambiguates the sole parameter beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 specifies a clear verb and resource: 'Get field definitions for a NetBox endpoint', with a concrete list of returned content (names, types, required/read-only, choice values). It is unmistakably distinct from sibling tools like netbox_list_objects or netbox_create_object, and even cross-references netbox_list_endpoints for valid endpoint values.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this before creating or updating objects to see what fields are valid.' It also references netbox_list_endpoints for valid endpoint strings, giving the agent an actionable path to obtain valid inputs. This is strong usage guidance with no ambiguity.

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