get_outputs

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 almost nothing beyond that: it does not say what an 'auxiliary output' is, whether results are filtered or scoped, or how pagination terminates, and the 'wraps NBAPI GetOutputs' note is implementation trivia rather than agent-relevant behavior.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The trailing parenthetical is dead weight but the description does not ramble.

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 fully documented optional param and no output schema, the definition is structurally adequate. It stops short of defining the domain term 'auxiliary outputs' or indicating result scope, which is the main thing an agent would still wonder about.

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?

With one optional parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains STARTFROMKEY as a pagination cursor. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 ('Lists') and resource ('auxiliary outputs configured on the NetBox system'), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many other list-style siblings (get_portals, get_readers, list_events) beyond the resource noun, and the parenthetical '(wraps NBAPI GetOutputs)' adds no selection information.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the sibling list tools. The only usage-adjacent hint (pagination) lives in the schema, not the description.

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