get_threat_levels

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds essentially nothing behavioral beyond that. 'Wraps NBAPI GetThreatLevels' is implementation trivia, not disclosure of return shape, pagination, or filter behavior, so the remaining behavioral burden is left unmet.

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?

One compact sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. The trailing parenthetical about wrapping the NBAPI call is the only content that does not earn its place.

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?

A simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema needs little prose, so the definition is not badly incomplete. However, the meaning of the sole filter parameter and the shape of the returned list are left entirely unresolved, which is a real gap for an agent deciding how to call it.

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%, but the single parameter is an opaque 'ALLPARTITIONS' whose schema text ('Optional. Per NBAPI GetThreatLevels filter.') explains nothing, and the description's 'optionally filtered' does not clarify it either. Baseline 3 applies since the schema nominally documents the parameter, but neither source resolves what value it accepts.

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 threat levels') plus scope ('configured on the NetBox system'), which clearly separates it from sibling list tools such as get_partitions or get_access_levels. It does not name an alternative or explain how it relates to them, but the resource is distinct enough that no differentiation is strictly needed.

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?

'Optionally filtered' implies the tool is used to enumerate threat levels with an optional narrowing condition, which is the minimum viable usage hint. There is no statement of when to prefer this over siblings, no prerequisites, and no note about what the filter actually selects.

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