get_floors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the internal note "wraps NBAPI GetFloors", which is implementation trivia rather than behavioral context; pagination behavior implied by STARTFROMKEY is never mentioned.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource up front and no filler. The parenthetical wrapper reference is the only element that arguably does not earn its place.

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 read-only list tool with one optional, fully documented parameter, the description is minimally adequate. With no output schema, it could have said more about return shape or whether pagination is supported beyond the cursor.

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 single STARTFROMKEY parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it as a pagination cursor. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is complete.

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?

States a specific verb ("Lists") and resource ("floors") plus the owning system (NetBox), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the many other `get_*`/list siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives among the many sibling list tools (get_locations, get_elevators, etc.). It only implies usage through the word "Lists", which is not actionable routing guidance.

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