get_sios

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the request requires MERCURYKEY, that there is no unfiltered listing, and that the response includes a NEXTKEY pagination cursor. This goes beyond a bare 'list SIOs' statement, though it does not detail auth beyond the key or the full response shape.

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 two tight sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the two most important operational facts: the required key and pagination. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler.

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 single-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essential context: scope, mandatory key, the absence of an unfiltered variant, and the pagination mechanism. No output schema exists, but the description's mention of the NEXTKEY cursor gives the agent the key behavioral detail needed to call it and continue paging.

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%, so the schema already documents MERCURYKEY. The description adds meaning by clarifying that this key is required and scopes the listing to one panel, and the schema description adds the discovery path via get_mercury_panels. This is useful context beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists'), a specific resource ('SIOs attached to one Mercury panel'), and a scope constraint ('one Mercury panel'). It also notes it wraps NBAPI GetSios and explicitly says there is no unfiltered all-SIOs listing, which distinguishes it from any broader listing sibling.

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 makes the usage context clear: this is for listing SIOs for a single Mercury panel, and MERCURYKEY is required. The schema description adds 'Use get_mercury_panels to discover keys,' which provides a concrete prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_sio, but the scope limitation and key requirement are enough guidance.

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