get_elevators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only listing operation ('Lists') and names the wrapped API, but it does not describe pagination behavior, output shape, or failure modes. This is adequate for a simple non-destructive list operation, but not detailed.

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 and resource without filler. The parenthetical endpoint context is useful and non-redundant.

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 simple list tool with one optional pagination parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema are sufficient to call it correctly. It names the resource, the wrapped endpoint, and the only parameter; enumerating return fields would be helpful but is not necessary for invocation.

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 for the only parameter, STARTFROMKEY, with a clear description ('Optional. Pagination cursor to continue listing from a previous call.'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and a specific resource ('elevators configured on the NetBox system'), and it identifies the wrapped endpoint ('NBAPI GetElevators'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools.

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 by naming the resource and action, so an agent can infer it is the tool for listing elevators. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_readers or get_floors.

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