get_readers

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Lists' and the NBAPI wrapper make the read-only nature reasonably clear, and the 'no portal-id filter' constraint is useful. However, it does not describe pagination behavior or response format beyond what the schema already provides, so behavioral disclosure is adequate but not 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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the key limitation and the sibling alternative, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the tool does, its limitation, and the relevant alternative. The missing explicit statement about what the returned reader list contains is a minor gap, but the description is otherwise sufficient for 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the only parameter, STARTFROMKEY, whose description already explains it as a pagination cursor. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('readers configured on the NetBox system'), making the purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from get_portals by explicitly noting the absence of a portal-id filter.

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 directly tells the agent when to use this tool vs. an alternative: use get_readers for a flat reader list, and use get_portals to see readers nested under a portal. This is explicit routing with no ambiguity.

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