Get Device NED ID's

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by using 'Retrieve' (a read operation). The description adds value by specifying the resource type (NED IDs) and context (Cisco NSO), but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'available' entails beyond what annotations cover.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the resource and context, but could improve by addressing usage relative to siblings or parameter semantics, though annotations and output schema reduce the burden.

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 input schema has one parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description mentions no parameters. Since schema_description_coverage is low (<50%), the description doesn't compensate by explaining the 'params' object's purpose or usage, leaving parameters undocumented. With 0 parameters effectively described, the baseline is adjusted to 3 due to minimal parameter burden.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('available Network Element Driver (NED) IDs in Cisco NSO'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_device_platform' or 'get_device_config', which might retrieve related but different device information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_device_platform' and 'get_device_config', there's no indication of the specific context for retrieving NED IDs, such as for device configuration or compatibility checks, leaving usage ambiguous.

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