get_portals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the underlying NBAPI call, pagination via STARTFROMKEY/NEXTKEY, nested-reader inclusion, and the absence of single-portal filtering. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or response fields, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 dense sentence conveys the resource, scope, nested structure, implementation wrapper, pagination mechanism, and a key limitation. There is no filler and the most important facts are front-loaded.

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 paginated list with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the scope, nested readers, pagination behavior, and the absence of a single-portal filter. Sibling tool names help fill the alternative-use context. Minor omissions like auth or exact return fields do not prevent correct invocation.

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 only parameter, STARTFROMKEY, is already fully documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description reinforces that pagination uses STARTFROMKEY/NEXTKEY but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Lists portals configured on the NetBox system') and immediately adds distinguishing detail: each portal comes with nested readers, it wraps NBAPI GetPortals, and there is no single-portal filter. This clearly separates it from siblings like find_portals or get_portal_group.

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 clearly communicates that this is a paginated list operation and explicitly warns that there is no single-portal filter, so an agent knows not to use it to fetch a specific portal. It does not name an alternative tool directly, but the sibling list makes that inferable.

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