get_mercury_panels

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the empty-result case and the FAIL/'NOT FOUND' outcome when no Mercury hardware exists, which prepares the agent for error-shaped responses. It could go further on permission needs or result shape, but the failure-mode disclosure is genuinely useful.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the edge-case behavior. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers the tricky return case (empty or FAIL/NOT FOUND), which is the main thing an agent needs to interpret results. It stops short of describing what a populated panel entry looks like, but for a simple read-only listing tool this is nearly 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%, so NAME, MERCURYKEY, PARTITIONKEY and ALLPARTITIONS are all documented in the schema with their semantics. The description only says 'optionally filtered' and adds nothing about filter interaction (e.g. whether ALLPARTITIONS overrides PARTITIONKEY), 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the Mercury panels configured on the NetBox system') and even names the underlying call it wraps, so the agent knows exactly what it does. However, it never distinguishes itself from the singular sibling get_mercury_panel, leaving the list-vs-single choice to inference.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered' hints that filters exist but gives no guidance on when to filter versus list everything, and no prerequisites. It also never points to get_mercury_panel as the alternative for retrieving one panel, despite that sibling being an obvious source of confusion.

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