get_portal_states

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

Annotations only assert readOnlyHint=true; the description adds the upstream origin (wraps NBAPI GetPortalStates) and, more usefully, the exact return structure since no output schema exists. It does not cover auth, pagination, or whether the list is fixed/cacheable, so it is not fully rich.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and followed immediately by the return shape and sibling relationship. No filler or 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (STATEKEY/STATENAME pairs) and the consumer relationship to get_portal_statuses. Combined with a fully documented single parameter and a read-only annotation, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the single PORTALSTATES enum is fully documented in the schema (partition scoping for TRUE vs omitted). The description adds no parameter detail, 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 portal states NetBox defines) and pins down the return shape as STATEKEY/STATENAME pairs. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_portal_statuses by framing itself as the vocabulary the latter reports against.

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?

It names the sibling it relates to and the condition that makes it useful (to interpret or filter get_portal_statuses' STATEKEY). It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the routing intent is clear without opening either schema.

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