get_guide

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 clearly states the tool is static, makes no controller call, and returns an index for unrecognized topics. This goes beyond a simple 'returns guidance' claim and covers the key behavioral traits an agent needs to know.

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?

Two sentences deliver purpose, behavioral transparency, and usage instructions with zero wasted words. The no-controller-call trait is front-loaded, and the invocation instructions are compact and complete. Every clause earns 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 single-optional-parameter static reference tool with no output schema, the description covers all invocation paths (with and without topic, unrecognized topic) and the static behavior. Minor gaps remain around the structure of the returned content, but the tool is self-describing reference material, so this is acceptable.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the topic parameter and its allowed values. The description adds a small amount of value beyond the schema by explaining the behavior for omitted/unrecognized topics ('returns the index instead'), which mirrors the schema but in context. This meets the baseline for covered parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns static reference guidance on this server's S2 NetBox domain knowledge.' It also states 'Makes no controller call,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools that fetch live data. Enumerating the six topics makes the tool's scope immediately obvious.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: call with no topic for an index, or with a specific topic for full content. It also states that an unrecognized topic returns the index instead. It does not name a sibling alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, but the domain-guidance purpose is distinct enough that this is a minor gap.

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