get_outputs

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'lists auxiliary outputs', which is a read operation, but does not mention safety implications (e.g., read-only nature, no side effects), pagination behavior beyond the parameter, or any potential errors. For a list operation, this is a minor gap, but given the lack of annotations, the description should have at least indicated it is non-destructive and returns a list. The reference to 'wraps NBAPI GetOutputs' adds some context but does not fully disclose 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that states the purpose and references the underlying API. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description plus the schema is nearly complete. However, the lack of any behavioral transparency (e.g., that the operation is read-only and returns a list of outputs) and absence of usage guidance leave minor gaps. With annotations absent, a bit more context would be expected, but for a simple list tool, the current state is adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter STARTFROMKEY fully described as a pagination cursor. The description does not add further meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already provides sufficient semantics. The description's reference to 'auxiliary outputs' does not directly explain the parameter, but schema coverage meets the burden.

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 clearly states the tool lists auxiliary outputs on the NetBox system, a specific verb-resource combination. It also references the wrapped NBAPI endpoint, which helps identify the underlying operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings beyond indicating 'auxiliary outputs' as a distinct resource, which is sufficient given the naming.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the resource name 'auxiliary outputs' is specific enough that an agent can infer it is for that resource only. It does not mention any context like pagination handling, but the single parameter's schema covers that. No exclusions or alternatives are given, so it's adequate but not explicit.

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