get_access_level_names

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Lists' and 'wraps NBAPI GetAccessLevelNames' convey a read-only enumeration and tie the tool to a known API, but the description does not disclose return shape, pagination behavior, or any constraints beyond what the schema already documents.

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 that states the action, resource, and backend wrapper with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 combination of the description and the fully documented schema is sufficient to invoke the tool, but the definition is thin for tool selection: it does not explain how the returned names relate to the sibling access-level tools or what the output looks like. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more context would make it complete.

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%, and both optional parameters (PARTITIONKEY, STARTFROMNAME) have meaningful descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat them. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level context, so the schema baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the operation ('Lists access level names') and the resource scope ('configured on the NetBox system'), and the wrapper reference adds endpoint precision. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_access_levels or get_access_level, though the word 'names' implies the distinction.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool versus get_access_levels, get_access_level, or get_access_level_group(s). The description only states what it does; it never provides conditions, exclusions, or alternative suggestions.

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