netbox-mcp-server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool targets a unique combination of resource and action. Even though there are many resources, each has its own set of tools (list, get, create, update, delete), and descriptions clearly distinguish between similar concepts like site vs site_group. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tools follow a rigid netbox_<action>_<resource> pattern (e.g., netbox_list_sites, netbox_get_site). Actions are consistently verbs (list, get, create, update, delete). The only exception is netbox_global_search, which is a special-purpose tool and does not break the overall pattern.
Tool Count1/5
With 446 tools, the server is vastly oversized for an MCP interface. Even with consistent naming, the sheer number overwhelms both human and agent users. A well-scoped server typically has 3–15 tools; this has over 400, making it impractical to navigate.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides full CRUD (list, get, create, update, delete) for nearly every NetBox resource across DCIM, IPAM, virtualization, circuits, tenancy, and more. It also includes a global search tool for initial discovery. No obvious gaps exist for standard operations.
Average 4.2/5 across 390 of 446 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 9 of 9 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 32 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that it 'adds a new row' and cautions about dry-run, but does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, or limitations. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short with only three sentences and a returns section, avoiding verbosity. However, the dry-run instruction feels placed awkwardly, and the structure could be improved by separating usage notes from return format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 12 parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of what interface templates are or how they relate to device types, the description is incomplete. An agent would struggle to understand how to correctly use all optional fields like bridge, poe_mode, etc.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 42%, and the tool description adds no explanation of parameters beyond what the schema provides. Critical relationships (e.g., mutual exclusivity of device_type and module_type) are not clarified. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates a new interface_template in NetBox. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like netbox_update_interface_template or netbox_create_interface, which also deal with interface templates or interfaces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a safety caution about asking before calling if the user wants a dry-run, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., netbox_get_interface_template for reading, netbox_update_interface_template for modifying). No prerequisites or context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the behavioral trait 'adds a new row' and advises asking for dry-run, which goes beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent, so the description provides incremental context but does not cover auth needs, rate limits, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with the main action stated in the first sentence. It includes necessary warnings and return format info without unnecessary fluff. Slightly improved by adding parameter context but still well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects, the description is incomplete. It explains return format (Markdown/JSON) but omits explanations of required vs optional fields, error handling, or how the object fits into the broader NetBox context (e.g., relationship to FHRP group assignments).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not reference any parameters. With 50% schema description coverage (5 of 10 parameters described in schema), the description should compensate for missing parameter explanations but fails to do so. The schema itself covers only half the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates a new fhrp_group in NetBox with the verb 'Create'. The resource is identified. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling CRUD tools like netbox_get_fhrp_group or netbox_update_fhrp_group, though the verb and title make the purpose clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only includes a warning to ask before calling for a dry-run, but does not mention checking existing objects with list/get or using update/modify for modifications. No comparison to siblings is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be a write operation without destruction. The description adds the dry-run caution, which is a behavioral nuance. However, it does not mention idempotency (idempotentHint=false) or potential side effects beyond creating a new row.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (three sentences plus a Returns line), with no redundant content aside from 'This adds a new row to NetBox,' which is slightly repetitive but acceptable. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of inventory_item_templates, their relation to other NetBox objects, or what the returned Markdown contains. The dry-run mention lacks explanation of what a dry-run entails.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 27%, with only 3 of 11 parameters described. The description does not compensate: it only mentions the response_format parameter indirectly through the Returns line. No additional meaning is provided for other parameters like role, label, parent, etc.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Create a new inventory_item_template in NetBox.' The verb 'Create' and resource are specific. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get or update, but the name and context make it clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage guidance is 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run.' There is no explanation of when to use this tool versus alternatives like updating or listing inventory item templates. No comparison to other create tools is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate write, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds 'This adds a new row to NetBox' and return format info (Markdown or JSON). It suggests a dry-run check but does not disclose behavior beyond what annotations imply, such as side effects or error states.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with two sentences and a return line, front-loading the primary purpose. The 'Returns' section is functional but could be integrated more naturally.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create tool with no output schema and moderate parameter coverage, the description lacks background on what a vlan_translation_policy is, prerequisites, or relationships to other objects. It is insufficient for an agent to understand the full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 50% schema description coverage, the tool description adds no extra meaning to parameters. The 'Returns' section mentions response_format but does not elaborate on parameter use or constraints beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create a new vlan_translation_policy in NetBox' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from other create tools among siblings (e.g., netbox_create_vlan), relying solely on the object name for distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage cue is 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run,' implying caution but lacking explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update or list. No context is given for prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint: false). The description adds that it 'adds a new row' and includes a dry-run warning, which is behavioral context not in annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects, permission needs, or other behaviors. This is moderate value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (3 sentences) and front-loads the purpose. The second sentence ('This adds a new row to NetBox') is slightly redundant with the first. Overall efficient but could be tighter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the action, return format, and a dry-run consideration. It lacks details on prerequisites, what an aggregate represents in NetBox, or how it relates to other objects. Adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67%, leaving three parameters (tenant, comments, description) undocumented. The description does not add any parameter explanations, nor does it compensate for the missing schema descriptions. It relies entirely on the input schema, which is incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create a new aggregate in NetBox,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling create tools (e.g., netbox_create_prefix), but the tool name and title already provide that distinction. Hence, purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage guidance is 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run.' This is a caution, not a guideline on when to use this tool versus alternatives like netbox_get_aggregate or netbox_update_aggregate. There is no comparison or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc. The description adds that it 'adds a new row' and specifies output formats (markdown/json). It does not contradict annotations, but omits details like error behavior or prerequisites beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose. It avoids fluff but could be more structured (e.g., separate sections). Every sentence adds value, though one sentence is a tautology of the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the need for a virtual machine ID, the distinction from device interfaces, or how to structure custom_fields. The output format info is helpful but insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at only 36%, the description provides no additional parameter details. The returns section is about output format, not parameters. This is insufficient for the 14 parameters, many lacking schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new vm_interface in NetBox,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like netbox_get_vm_interface, netbox_update_vm_interface, and netbox_delete_vm_interface by indicating it is a create operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises to ask about dry-run before calling, which is a safety guideline. However, it fails to clarify when to use this tool over netbox_create_interface (for physical devices), leaving a critical distinction unaddressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds a caution about dry-run and notes the response format (markdown/json). However, it does not disclose idempotency, duplicate handling, or permission requirements, which are important for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose. The note about dry-run is valuable, but the phrase 'This adds a new row to NetBox' is redundant and could be removed. Still, it is relatively concise and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks context about the role of inventory_item_roles, prerequisites, or how the returned data is structured beyond format. More detail would help the agent understand the tool's place in the workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 71% of parameters with descriptions, so the description adds minimal extra meaning. It explains the response_format parameter in the Returns section, which is helpful. But overall, the description does not enhance understanding of parameters beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a new inventory_item_role, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explain what an inventory_item_role is, which could help differentiate from other resource creation tools. Overall clear but could be more informative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes an important usage instruction: 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run.' This provides context for cautious execution. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus the update or get variants, and no alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a write operation but not destructive. The description adds context by stating it adds a new row and asking for dry-run confirmation, but it lacks details on error handling, duplicate checks, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The line 'This adds a new row to NetBox' is slightly redundant with the first sentence, but overall it is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (21 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the concept of a rack_type, nor does it guide parameter selection beyond the schema, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 21 parameters and only 33% schema description coverage, the description provides no additional meaning for parameters. Key fields like width, u_height, and outer_dimensions are left unexplained, forcing reliance on the incomplete schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('rack_type'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like netbox_create_rack or netbox_create_manufacturer, though it does not elaborate on what a rack_type is beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises asking the user before calling, implying a need for confirmation. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives or mention prerequisites like manufacturer existence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it adds a new row and specifies the return format (Markdown or JSON). It does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or required permissions beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, issuing a precaution, and describing the output format. It is efficient but could be better structured with explicit sections.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential action and output format but lacks explanation of the resource context (e.g., what 'device_id' refers to) and how to decide among sibling create tools. The dry-run instruction adds some safety context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 70%, so most parameters already have descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific details, only mentioning the return format. It does not compensate for the 30% undocumented parameters (e.g., description, label, speed).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new console_server_port in NetBox', specifying the verb and resource. The name and resource type distinguish it from sibling tools like netbox_create_console_port, but no additional context is provided about what a console_server_port is.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises asking the user for a dry-run confirmation but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like netbox_update_console_server_port or when to prefer netbox_list_console_server_ports. No selection criteria are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate it's a non-read-only mutation with no destructive behavior. The description reinforces the creation action and adds a dry-run instruction, but doesn't elaborate on side effects, idempotency, or required authorization beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with 4 sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by contextual info, a clear instruction, and return format. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 10 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description only covers the return format and a dry-run note. It omits critical context like the need for rear_port to exist, the relationship between device_type/module_type, and typical usage patterns, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 60%, meaning 4 parameters (color, label, description, rear_port_position) lack descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-level information, leaving these parameters unexplained and not compensating for the gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Create a new front_port_template in NetBox' with a specific verb and resource. It adds context by mentioning 'adds a new row', but doesn't differentiate from other NetBox creation tools beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Includes an explicit instruction to ask for dry-run before calling, which is good for a mutation. However, it doesn't provide guidance on when to use this tool versus other create-template tools, nor does it clarify constraints like the mutual exclusivity of device_type and module_type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description confirms it creates a new row, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like permissions needed or side effects, though it does mention the return format options.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences. However, the dry-run caution interrupts the flow between purpose and return format. Overall, it is efficient but could be better structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 11 parameters (2 required), nested objects, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It lacks explanation of how parameters relate and does not fully describe the output beyond format options. It is adequate but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 73% schema description coverage, the schema already provides parameter explanations. The description adds no information about parameters, so it does not enhance understanding beyond what the schema offers. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates a new power_port and adds a new row. However, it does not differentiate this tool from other create tools in the sibling list, and it could better define what a power_port is.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage guidance is to ask the user before calling if they want a dry-run. There is no explicit instruction on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other power-related tools like netbox_create_power_feed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a creation tool (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, open world). The description adds the behavioral note that it 'adds a new row to NetBox' and specifies the return format (Markdown or JSON). This adds some value beyond annotations, but does not disclose other traits like potential side effects or validation behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with three short lines. The second line ('This adds a new row to NetBox.') is somewhat redundant with the first line, but overall the structure is clear and front-loaded with the purpose. Minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 9 parameters (including required mutual exclusivity between device_type and module_type) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter relationships, constraints beyond what's in the schema, or how the return format affects subsequent use. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 56%, meaning some parameters lack descriptions. The description does not explain any parameters or their roles, missing an opportunity to clarify the meaning of undocumented fields (color, label, positions, description). It adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Create a new rear_port_template in NetBox' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this creation tool from sibling tools that perform other operations (list, get, update, delete) on the same resource or other resources, even though it doesn't explicitly compare to other create tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides one usage note: 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run.' This is a safety guideline but does not offer context on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create vs update vs delete, or when to use this vs other create tools). No comparative guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes that it adds a new row and mentions the output format, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond annotations. The caution about dry-run adds some context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a caution and output format. Each sentence adds value, though the dry-run mention could be more integrated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a create tool with well-described parameters in the schema. However, it lacks context on hierarchical placement (e.g., parent regions) and does not clarify idempotency or reusability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is at 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description does not add extra meaning or usage guidance for parameters beyond what is in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Create a new region in NetBox' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from other create tools or explain what a region is in the NetBox hierarchy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Only includes a caution to ask before calling for a dry-run, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like netbox_update_region or other create tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description claims 'only provided fields are changed' (non-destructive PATCH), but the annotations have destructiveHint: true, indicating potential data destruction. This contradiction means the description undermines behavioral transparency. Score 1 per rubric for contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences plus a returns line, front-loaded with purpose and PATCH semantics. Every sentence adds value without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Minimally adequate: describes update behavior and output format, but given 13 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, more detail on typical use cases or return structure would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only 31% of parameters have schema descriptions, and the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Key fields like 'parent', 'site', 'status' are not explained, leaving the agent without guidance for proper usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update an existing location') and the resource ('location'). It specifies PATCH semantics and mentions the required 'id', distinguishing it from creation tools like netbox_create_location.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides basic guidance to supply the numeric 'id' and only desired fields, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context compared to sibling tools (e.g., create, delete).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with potential side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds the dry-run caution and mentions return format, but does not disclose error behavior, uniqueness constraints, or other side effects. It adds some value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: three sentences plus a brief return note. The purpose is stated first, and every sentence adds value (purpose, caution, return format). No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of what a circuit_termination is, how required parameters (circuit, term_side) relate, and the meaning of optional fields like termination_type. The dry-run advice and return format note are helpful but insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 69% (below 80%), and the tool description does not explain any parameters. Several schema parameters (e.g., pp_info, description, xconnect_id, mark_connected) lack descriptions in the schema, and the tool description does not compensate, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new circuit_termination in NetBox', specifying the verb ('Create') and the resource ('circuit_termination'). This directly matches the tool name and title, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a guideline to 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run', but it does not explain when to use this create tool versus alternatives like netbox_update_circuit_termination or netbox_get_circuit_termination. No when/when-not or comparison to siblings is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'adds a new row' and mentions return format. Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive. The dry-run advice adds some transparency, but no details on idempotency or side effects beyond the basic creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (3-4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. The only minor redundancy is the repetition of the creation concept, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks important context: it doesn't explain what a delivery is, the relationship with purchases, or how to perform a dry-run. The return format is covered, but prerequisites and broader context are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 78%, high, so baseline 3 applies. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Create a new delivery in NetBox' and 'adds a new row', making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like update or delete, but the verb 'create' and the context are sufficient.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a key guideline: 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run.' This is helpful for a mutation tool. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_deliveries or get_delivery) or specify prerequisites (e.g., purchase must exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that 'This adds a new row to NetBox,' confirming the creation action. It also mentions the return format. However, it does not disclose what happens on duplicate names, required permissions, or any irreversible side effects. The dry-run note partially addresses behavioral awareness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three clear sentences: purpose, behavioral note (dry-run), and return format. It is front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from behavioral notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 26 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits key context such as: interfaces are created for a device (implied by required device_id), the relationship to other NetBox objects (e.g., VLANs, LAGs), and typical usage patterns. The dry-run note and return format are helpful but do not compensate for the lack of high-level parameter guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 65%, so many parameters already have descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. For example, it does not highlight required parameters (device_id, name, type) or explain the response_format parameter's role. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given moderate coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new interface in NetBox' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate between device interfaces and VM interfaces, though sibling tools include netbox_create_vm_interface, so the distinction is implicit. The name 'netbox_create_interface' implies device interfaces, but the description could explicitly mention 'device interface' to avoid ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a guideline: 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run,' which is useful for cautious execution. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like netbox_update_interface or netbox_create_vm_interface. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's statement 'adds a new row' adds context but does not elaborate on side effects or non-idempotency (annotations say idempotentHint=false). Return format is explained, but no other behavioral traits like error cases or permission requirements are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: three sentences defining purpose, a usage note, and a return summary. It is front-loaded with the primary action. No redundant or extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (14 parameters, no output schema), the description lacks details on parameter usage, constraints (e.g., integer IDs for VRF and tenant), and the overall object structure. It covers only the core action and return format, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, meaning half of the 14 parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The description does not add any information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. It does not compensate for the missing parameter explanations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new ip_address in NetBox' with a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'adds a new row' reinforces the action. The tool name itself distinguishes from siblings like netbox_get_ip_address or netbox_update_ip_address.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Only one guideline is provided: 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run.' There is no comparison with alternative tools (e.g., netbox_update_ip_address) or explanation of when to use this tool versus others for similar purposes. The guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, matching the create action. The description adds 'This adds a new row to NetBox' and suggests a dry-run check, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like idempotency (not idempotent), potential duplicates, or permission needs. With annotations already marking it as a write operation, the description adds marginal value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences long: purpose, caution, and return format. It is concise and front-loaded with the purpose, though the second sentence 'This adds a new row to NetBox' is somewhat redundant with the first sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (6 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the concept of a module_bay_template, how to find the device_type ID, error scenarios, or the structure of the return value beyond format options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (three of six parameters have descriptions). The description does not add any parameter-level details beyond the schema. For a schema with exactly 50% coverage, the baseline score is 3, and the description does not compensate for missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new module_bay_template in NetBox', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like netbox_get_module_bay_template, netbox_update_module_bay_template, and netbox_delete_module_bay_template.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only includes 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run', which is a caution but not a clear guideline on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., device_type must exist) or differentiate from update/get tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states PATCH semantics (non-destructive update), but annotations declare destructiveHint: true, which contradicts the intended behavior. This misalignment reduces transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two short paragraphs, front-loading the crucial PATCH semantics and usage. Every sentence adds value, though it could include a brief example.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and an annotation contradiction, the description covers core behavior but lacks details on return values, permissions, or side effects. It is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (36%), and the description does not compensate by explaining the undocumented parameters (end, rir, name, slug, start, tenant, description). It only gives general usage advice.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing asn_range in NetBox' and specifies PATCH semantics, making the action and resource unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like create and delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear instructions: supply the numeric 'id' and only the fields to change. It implicitly suggests using this tool when modifying an existing range, though it does not explicitly contrast with create or other alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description clarifies PATCH semantics (only provided fields change), which adds useful transparency and aligns with annotations. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise with three sentences plus a returns section. Front-loaded with purpose. Could add a bit more detail without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 11 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and nested objects, the description lacks context on custom_fields, enums, prerequisites (e.g., object existence), and expected behavior for optional fields. Incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (36%). The description only mentions id and response_format, leaving most parameters (e.g., name, tags, auth_key, custom_fields) unexplained. Does not compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool updates an existing fhrp_group using PATCH semantics. Verb and resource are explicit, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create or delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides basic guidance on supplying id and only changed fields, and response format options. However, no explicit when-to-use or comparison with alternatives such as create or delete is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. Description adds PATCH semantics and response format, but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or error conditions. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: three sentences plus a bulleted return description. No fluff, all information is relevant and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers core functionality, PATCH semantics, and output format. With annotations and schema, it is minimally adequate. Lacks discussion of error handling or advanced use cases like custom_fields, but sufficient for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%, missing descriptions for name, slug, color, description. Description only explains id and response_format usage, leaving other parameters under-documented. Does not adequately compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states 'Update an existing inventory_item_role' with PATCH semantics. Clearly identifies the verb and resource. While there are sibling update tools, it is specific to inventory_item_role, making it distinguishable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear instructions: supply numeric 'id' and only fields to change. Implies when to use (update existing object) but does not explicitly contrast with create or delete siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the description's statement 'This adds a new row to NetBox' aligns and adds a small behavioral detail. It also notes the return format. However, it lacks disclosure of potential side effects, required permissions, or the fact that the action is not idempotent (though idempotentHint=false is provided).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, consisting of three short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose immediately, then adds a key precaution about dry-run, and finally specifies the return format. Every sentence adds essential info with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description only covers the return format (markdown or JSON) and the dry-run caution. It does not explain typical usage patterns, prerequisites (e.g., provider and type IDs must exist), or how the tool fits into common workflows. This leaves the agent to infer missing context from parameter names and schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 64% schema description coverage, the input schema already provides some parameter documentation. The tool description adds no new information about parameters, relying entirely on the schema. It does not clarify how parameters like custom_fields or provider_account should be used, nor does it compensate for the 36% of parameters with missing descriptions in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new circuit in NetBox' and reinforces with 'This adds a new row to NetBox,' making the verb and resource explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_update_circuit and netbox_get_circuit by focusing solely on creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises to 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run,' which provides a basic precaution for using the tool. However, it does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use update or delete circuit tools, or how to prepare required IDs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc. The description adds that it adds a row to NetBox, which is consistent. The dry-run advice is the only extra behavioral context. No contradictions, but depth is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with three sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a useful caution. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is sparse. It does not explain the mutual exclusivity of device_type and module_type, nor the default response format. More context would be needed for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 71%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter details beyond what's already in the schema. It restates the type example but offers no new semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a new console_port_template in NetBox. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like netbox_create_console_server_port_template or netbox_create_front_port_template.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises to ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run, which provides some usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false, so the description's mention that 'This adds a new row to NetBox' is consistent but adds limited value. The description does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as required permissions, error behaviors, or side effects beyond what annotations imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two sentences for purpose and a guideline, plus a return format note. It is front-loaded but includes minor redundancy ('Create a new inventory_item_group' and 'This adds a new row'). Overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters including nested objects (custom_fields) and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and a usage hint but lacks details on how to use parameters, examples, or behavior around parent relationships. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (71%), so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond the schema, though it briefly mentions return formats which relate to response_format. No additional parameter context is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new inventory_item_group in NetBox', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It differentiates from sibling tools that list, get, update, or delete inventory item groups, and the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a guideline to ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like netbox_update_inventory_item_group or netbox_list_inventory_item_groups. It lacks context about prerequisites or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false). The description adds the dry-run caution and clarifies it adds a row. No contradictions, but no deeper behavioral details (e.g., uniqueness constraints) are provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded. The dry-run caution and return format are efficiently conveyed. Minor room for improvement in structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the return format and creation action, but lacks context about required dependencies (e.g., manufacturer must exist) and does not mention that inventory_item_type is a child of manufacturer. Given high parameter count and no output schema, more context would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 80% schema description coverage, the schema already explains most parameters. The description only adds return format info, not parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new inventory_item_type in NetBox', using a specific verb and resource. Among siblings like 'update' and 'delete', the purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate from similar create tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises asking the user about a dry-run before calling, which is a useful guideline. However, it lacks information on when to use this tool versus update or list, and does not mention prerequisites like existing manufacturer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it 'adds a new row' and mentions return format, which provides context but not deep behavioral detail like permissions or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and directly useful. No redundant or missing words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers creation purpose, dry-run caution, and return format. Given the tool's moderate complexity (8 params, many optional) and lack of output schema, the description is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents parameters well. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new mac_address in NetBox', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools by resource type, but does not elaborate further.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Only a single guideline about asking for a dry-run before calling. No comparison with alternative tools (e.g., update vs create), no prerequisites, no conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states 'This adds a new row to NetBox,' confirming a create operation, and describes the output format (Markdown or JSON). Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so no contradiction; the description adds useful detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value (purpose, dry-run caution, return format). No fluff, but could be more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 2 required, no output schema), the description covers purpose, a usage caveat, and output format. However, it lacks details on parameter relationships (e.g., module_bay and module_type) and does not explain the module concept or error states. It is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 10 parameters with 50% description coverage. The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning; it only mentions the response_format in the output context. Since the description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation, the score is below baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new module in NetBox,' specifying the action (create) and resource (module). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like netbox_create_module_bay or netbox_create_module_type, but the name and action are sufficiently clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a usage hint: 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run.' This suggests caution but does not elaborate on when to use this tool instead of alternatives or provide exclusions. Some guidance exists but is incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses that it adds a new row (state change) and mentions return format options. The dry-run ask adds behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not discuss error scenarios, required permissions, or idempotency implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise (3 lines), front-loaded with purpose, and includes a structured returns section. Minor redundancy ('new prefix' and 'new row') but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 15 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks explanation of what a prefix is in NetBox IPAM, relationships to other objects (e.g., VRF, VLAN), or common usage patterns. It meets minimum viability but is incomplete for a complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 60% (moderate), but the description adds no additional meaning for any parameter. Baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states 'Create a new prefix in NetBox', which is a clear verb+resource combination. The tool name reinforces this, so purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage instruction is 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run.' There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools (e.g., netbox_update_prefix, netbox_list_prefixes) or any prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent. The description adds little beyond stating it creates a new row, with no details on side effects, permissions, or irreversible consequences. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with short sentences and a clear returns section. It could be more structured, but it is efficient and front-loads the key purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, no output schema, and lacking parameter insights, the description is incomplete. It covers the dry-run caution and response format but omits context about expected input values and the nature of the object created, reducing its completeness for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 63%, but the description only explains the 'response_format' parameter by describing its return values. It does not clarify other parameters like 'provider', 'account', or 'custom_fields', leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema for most parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Create a new provider_account in NetBox,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling create tools by specifying 'provider_account', making purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes the explicit instruction 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run,' which is a clear usage guideline. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many sibling create tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but no destructive effect (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it adds a new row to NetBox and explains the return format (markdown or JSON). This provides some context beyond annotations, but lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three sentences with no fluff. The purpose is in the first sentence, followed by a call to action and return format. All information is relevant and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 9 parameters and a domain-specific concept (rack reservation), the description is minimal. It does not explain what a rack reservation is, the meaning of 'units', how custom_fields work, or any constraints. The return format is covered, but overall the tool lacks sufficient context for an agent to use it confidently without prior knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (78%, 7 of 9 params documented). The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries most of the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new rack_reservation in NetBox.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_get_rack_reservation, netbox_update_rack_reservation, and netbox_delete_rack_reservation. The action is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage guideline is 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run.' There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as netbox_update_rack_reservation for modifying an existing reservation, or which prerequisites (e.g., existing rack, user) are needed. The instruction is helpful but insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the dry-run caution and explains the return format (markdown/json). No contradictions. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., duplicate handling, required permissions), but the annotations partially cover safety. The added value is moderate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, each with a clear purpose: purpose statement, usage caution, and return info. It is concise and front-loads the action. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet list for parameters), but efficient for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters (2 required), high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides essential context: creation action, dry-run caution, and output format choice. It does not explain what a rack_role is, prerequisites, error scenarios, or behavior on duplicate. Adequate but leaves gaps for a complex tool set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 86%, so most parameters are explained in the schema. The description adds value only for 'response_format' by explaining its purpose in the 'Returns' section. Other parameters like 'name', 'slug', 'color' are not further elaborated. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description complements but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create'), the resource ('rack_role'), and the system ('NetBox'). It is specific and distinguishes from other create tools by naming the precise object. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage guidance is 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run.' This is useful but minimal. There is no comparison with sibling tools (e.g., netbox_create_rack, netbox_create_device) or advice on when to choose this tool over others. The agent gets a caution but lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description confirms it creates a new row and specifies return formats (markdown/json). Adds the dry-run caveat. No contradictions. Could describe more side effects but adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences: purpose, usage guidance, return format. Front-loaded with purpose. Efficient, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given complexity (11 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers purpose, a usage guideline, and return format. Lacks domain context and explanation of when to use, but schema covers parameters. Adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 64% and many parameters have descriptions. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond noting the return format parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create a new vrf in NetBox.' which is a clear verb+resource. It adds context that it adds a new row. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the update_vrf sibling tool, so not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It advises 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run.' which is a specific guideline. But it does not provide when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., update_vrf) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying PATCH semantics (idempotent behavior) and the return format (Markdown summary or JSON). The annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns without contradicting.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three short paragraphs, each front-loaded with key information: purpose, usage, and return format. No wasted words; every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high complexity (26 parameters, nested objects, low schema coverage), the description is insufficient. It does not explain critical fields or provide examples, leaving the agent with incomplete context for accurate invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is very low (15%), and the description does not explain the meaning of most parameters (e.g., 'lag', 'mtu', 'vrf', 'mode', etc.). Only 'id' is mentioned, leaving the agent without sufficient context for correct parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it updates an existing interface in NetBox with PATCH semantics. The verb 'update' and resource 'interface' are explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like netbox_update_device, though the resource type provides implicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that only the 'id' is required and omitted fields remain unchanged, providing minimal usage guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description states PATCH semantics (only provided fields changed), suggesting non-destructive behavior. However, annotations set destructiveHint=true, contradicting the described safety. No disclosure of what could be destroyed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each essential: purpose, usage instructions, and return format. No fluff, well-structured with key info front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers basic usage and return options, but lacks explanation of destructive hint contradiction and deeper parameter semantics. Adequate for a simple update tool, but incomplete given annotation mismatch.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has low description coverage (22%) and 18 parameters. Description adds only the partial update context but does not explain individual parameters beyond what schema already provides (e.g., id, response_format). Fails to compensate for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Update an existing power_feed' with PATCH semantics. The verb and resource are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling create/get/delete tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Describes to supply 'id' and only desired fields, clarifying partial update behavior. However, lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance, though siblings imply context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description mentions PATCH semantics and return format (Markdown or JSON), adding context beyond annotations. However, annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true; the description does not clarify if the operation is destructive (e.g., modifying existing data) or non-destructive. No contradiction detected, but could be more explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is brief and structured: purpose, usage, return format. Each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise by merging the second sentence, but overall well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 22 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It lacks details on which parameters are required versus optional, how to handle nested objects like custom_fields, and what constraints exist for fields like weight_unit or outer_* parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 18% schema coverage (4 of 22 parameters have descriptions), the description barely adds meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'id' and response_format but does not explain the purpose or constraints of other parameters like manufacturer, custom_fields, or enum fields. Schema descriptions are needed for the missing parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool updates an existing rack_type using PATCH semantics. It specifies the resource (rack_type) and action (update), and distinguishes from sibling create/delete tools via the title and context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides basic guidance on supplying 'id' and only the fields to change, and explains that omitted fields remain unchanged. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., create or other update tools), nor does it mention any prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds PATCH semantics and response format info, but annotations already provide mutation and idempotency hints. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Brief, well-structured paragraphs. No unnecessary info, but could be more skimmable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 12 parameters and no output schema, description provides minimal context. Lacks details on return structure and field descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Low schema coverage (33%) and description does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond the schema, missing opportunity to clarify fields like cid, type, status.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'update' and resource 'virtual_circuit'. Specifies PATCH semantics, distinguishing from create/delete siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides guidance on how to use (supply id and only fields to change) but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like create or delete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description adds 'This adds a new row to NetBox', which aligns with annotations and clarifies the non-destructive but mutating nature. The dry-run suggestion adds some caution but does not detail side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The description does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with only three sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds a behavioral note (dry-run), and the third describes the return formats. It is front-loaded and every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 14 parameters, nested objects ('a_terminations', 'b_terminations'), multiple enums, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on how to properly specify terminations, cable types, or how to handle required fields (though none are technically required, the tool effectively needs terminations to work). The return format is mentioned but the structure for 'json' is not described. More detailed context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (7 of 14 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what is already in the schema. For example, the important 'a_terminations' and 'b_terminations' parameters are documented in the schema but the description does not explain how to construct them or refer to their complexity. With moderate coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new cable in NetBox' as the primary action, using a specific verb and resource. It further explains 'This adds a new row to NetBox', reinforcing the purpose. Among sibling tools, there is netbox_get_cable and netbox_update_cable, so this is distinctly the create variant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes the guideline 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run', indicating a need for user confirmation before execution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like netbox_get_cable for reading or netbox_update_cable for modifications. The guidance is minimal and lacks explicit exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Create a new ...' is consistent. The description adds that it adds a row and explains the return format. No contradiction, but adds only marginal behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences plus a returns line. It is front-loaded with the primary action and provides essentials without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers return format and a caveat (dry-run), but for a creation tool with no output schema, it could provide more context on prerequisites or side effects. It is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (88%), so the description does not need to add much parameter-level detail. The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new contact_assignment in NetBox', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings implicitly by the verb, but does not explicitly contrast with list/get/update/delete tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes an important guideline: 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run.' However, it does not provide guidance on prerequisites (e.g., existence of contact and object) or when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is non-read-only and non-idempotent. The description adds that it 'adds a new row' and warns about dry-run, but does not disclose potential side effects like parent relationship constraints or custom field behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences: purpose, caution about dry-run, and return format. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no superfluous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters and nested objects (custom_fields), the description lacks guidance on optional but important fields like 'parent', 'tags', and 'custom_fields'. The return format info is helpful, but overall completeness is average.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (86%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining the 'parent' field is nestable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new contact_group in NetBox' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling create tools like netbox_create_contact or netbox_create_contact_role, which also create other objects in the contact domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises asking for a dry-run before calling, which provides a cautionary usage guideline. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., netbox_update_contact_group) or any prerequisites like existing parent object.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds context by noting that 'available_power' is computed and read-only in responses, and states that it adds a new row. This provides some additional behavioral insight, but the overall transparency is moderate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with 4 sentences. It front-loads the purpose, includes a key usage instruction, highlights a read-only field, and specifies return formats. Every sentence serves a clear purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (17 parameters, many optional) and lack of output schema, the description covers the basics: purpose, dry-run caution, read-only field note, and return format. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., power panel ID must exist) and does not explain defaults or potential errors. The description is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 71%, so most parameters already have descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying that 'available_power' is not an input parameter (appears only in responses). This is helpful but limited. Overall, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new power_feed' with a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous about the tool's action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update or delete tools. The title and description together make the purpose clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises asking the user if they want a dry-run before calling, which is a useful precaution. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus other power feed tools (e.g., update or list) or alternatives. The guidance is partial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint=false). The description adds only a dry-run suggestion but no additional behavioral context such as required permissions, side effects, or rate limits, offering minimal value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at three sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, dry-run caution, and returns. No redundant or extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 8 parameters, nested objects (custom_fields), and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on how to use custom_fields, tags, or location. It covers the core creation action but misses practical usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 75% schema description coverage, the schema already documents parameter meanings. The description does not add new information about parameters; it only mentions the return format. This meets the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Create a new power_panel in NetBox' and 'This adds a new row to NetBox,' clearly identifying the verb (create) and resource (power_panel). It distinguishes from sibling create tools by focusing on the specific resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes an instruction to 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run,' providing contextual guidance. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., netbox_create_rack or netbox_create_site) or exclude other scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds that it 'adds a new row', reinforcing creation. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if role already exists) or idempotency details, leaving gaps beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences for purpose/safety and a clear 'Returns:' line for output. Every sentence is relevant, and critical information (dry-run caution) is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return format (Markdown or JSON) and a key safety note. However, it lacks explanation of what a role is in NetBox, relationships to other objects, or error handling, leaving some gaps for an unfamiliar agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 86% schema coverage, the input schema already documents parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters (e.g., no explanation of slug pattern or weight default), so it provides no extra value beyond the schema baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new role in NetBox' and 'adds a new row', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., netbox_list_roles, netbox_update_role) by focusing on creation. The mention of 'dry-run' adds context for the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage guideline is 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run', which is a safety instruction but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_role or list_roles. No context is given for prerequisites or scenarios where creation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate mutation, which is consistent with 'This adds a new row to NetBox.' The description adds a dry-run caution but lacks details on side effects or required permissions. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two paragraphs and a list), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value (purpose, dry-run caution, output format). No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It mentions return format but does not describe the content of the created object or required permissions. More detail would help the agent understand the full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 57% (4 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema provides, except the response_format parameter is implicitly referenced via the return format note. The description adds minimal semantic value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new route_target in NetBox.' using a specific verb and resource, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools such as netbox_get_route_target or netbox_update_route_target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes an instruction to 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run,' but fails to provide any guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., netbox_update_route_target) or exclusions. No explicit usage context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds that it creates a record and returns Markdown or JSON, but does not detail side effects, permissions, or error conditions. It is consistent with annotations; no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only three sentences, with the purpose stated first, followed by a safety note and return format. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and return format but lacks context about preconditions (e.g., parent object existence) or response structure. Schema covers parameters adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 82%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The tool description does not add new parameter details beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Create a new service in NetBox' with a clear verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like netbox_list_services or netbox_update_service, and the added line 'This adds a new row to NetBox' reinforces the creation action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a safety instruction to ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like netbox_update_service or netbox_list_services. No prerequisites (e.g., parent object must exist) are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds context about the return format and a dry-run precaution, but lacks details on permissions or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two short paragraphs, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers basic purpose and output format, but does not explain prerequisites, relationship to other objects (e.g., services), or detailed behavior. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 75%, so baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema provides, though it mentions the response_format parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new service_template in NetBox' with a specific verb and resource. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like netbox_create_service, but the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises asking before calling if the user wanted a dry-run, which provides some usage guidance. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states that the tool adds a new row, confirming it is a write operation (consistent with readOnlyHint=false). However, it mentions a dry-run requirement without clarifying how to perform a dry-run (no parameter exists), causing ambiguity. The description does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief but includes a redundant sentence ('This adds a new row to NetBox.') that adds little value. The dry-run instruction is useful but could be clearer. Overall, it is adequately sized but not maximally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return format (markdown or JSON) and the dry-run precaution. It does not cover error handling or parameter interactions like custom_fields, but it is generally sufficient given the sibling tools available for verification.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 71%, so the schema already describes most parameters. The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema, except for mentioning the return format which is already documented. A score of 3 is appropriate per guidelines.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'virtual_circuit_type', and distinguishes it from siblings like get, update, delete, and list. The purpose is immediately obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides the guideline 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run', which instructs when to call, but does not explain when not to use it or what alternatives exist (e.g., update vs create). No explicit context for tool selection is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it creates a new row (non-idempotent) and mentions output formats. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description adds moderate context about return options but no additional behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description contains four concise, relevant sentences—purpose, action, safety instruction, and return format—with no unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the return format and a safety check but lacks explanations of parameter relationships or prerequisites (e.g., policy must exist), leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 80%, the schema already documents parameters well. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new vlan_translation_rule in NetBox' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like netbox_create_vlan_translation_policy, though the name itself provides that context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a useful instruction to 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run,' which guides safe usage. However, it lacks context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not mention prerequisites like the existence of a policy.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions that it 'adds a new row to NetBox', which is a behavioral trait beyond annotations. However, it does not detail permissions, idempotency, or error handling. Annotations already indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds modest value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences long, front-loading the purpose, then a guideline, then return format. No unnecessary text, every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers creation behavior, the dry-run suggestion, and return format. It does not explain the purpose of templates or the mutual exclusivity of device_type/module_type, but the schema covers that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 71%, so the schema already describes most parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific info beyond the schema, such as the relationship between device_type and module_type. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The first sentence clearly states the tool's action: 'Create a new console_server_port_template in NetBox.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other create tools for different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a usage guideline ('Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run'), but does not specify when to use this tool over siblings like netbox_create_console_port_template or netbox_create_interface_template. There is no explicit alternative comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it adds a row and mentions return format, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like auth requirements or side effects beyond creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with clear front-loading: purpose, caution, return format. No superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite 30 parameters and complex creation, the description lacks prerequisites (e.g., referenced objects must exist), duplicate handling, and validation rules. The openWorldHint annotation is not leveraged. Incomplete for a complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 70% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The description only adds return format, not parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new device in NetBox' with the verb 'Create' and resource 'device'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_update_device and netbox_list_devices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run' which provides a precaution but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives. No differentiation from other create tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context beyond annotations by noting that the tool adds a new row and explaining the return format options. However, it does not address the openWorldHint (potential for creating related objects) or idempotency, and no contradictions with annotations are present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a critical usage instruction and return format note without any unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basics: purpose, dry-run caution, and return format. However, it lacks detail on parameter behavior, side effects related to openWorldHint, and idempotency, which would be helpful for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 60% schema description coverage, the description provides no additional meaning for individual parameters beyond what the schema already offers. It only mentions the response_format parameter in the return section, not in the parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new device_bay_template in NetBox.' using a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get, update, delete, and other create tools for different entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes an instruction to ask before calling if a dry-run is wanted, which guides appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites, limiting its guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it 'adds a new row to NetBox' and describes the return format, but does not clarify side effects like duplicate handling or external interactions implied by openWorldHint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is largely concise with four sentences, but includes a redundant second sentence ('This adds a new row to NetBox') that restates the purpose. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, and the remaining sentences provide useful usage and output info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the output format and a usage note but lacks details on dry-run implementation, validation of required parameters, and handling of nested objects like custom_fields. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (88%), so the schema already documents parameters well. The description mentions the response_format parameter indirectly in the Returns section but adds no additional semantic context for other parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new platform in NetBox', specifying the action (create) and the resource (platform). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like netbox_update_platform or netbox_delete_platform.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes an instruction to 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run', which provides a usage guideline. However, it does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., checking existence first) or prerequisites, making it only minimally helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool creates a new row (mutation) and recommends a dry-run, which is helpful. Annotations indicate it is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. However, the description does not address potential side effects like duplicate handling, permission requirements, or rate limits, leaving moderate gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences plus a return format note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, 73% schema coverage, no output schema), the description provides return format and a dry-run warning, which are important. It does not explain parameter relationships or behavior in edge cases, but the schema and annotations fill many gaps. Overall, fairly complete for a create tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 73% description coverage, which is moderate. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information; it focuses on return format. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters nor enhance understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a new power_outlet in NetBox, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings implicitly as there is only one tool for creating power outlets. However, it does not explicitly mention that the outlet is associated with a device (device_id required), which is a key aspect of the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises asking for a dry-run before calling, which is a clear usage guideline for a mutation tool. It does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, but no alternative create tools exist for power outlets. The guidance is practical and appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate non-readOnly and openWorldHint, and description confirms it adds a new row. However, it does not elaborate on potential side effects (e.g., duplicate checks) or error conditions beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences plus a returns line, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, dry-run guidance, and return format. It is concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks explanation of the returned object's structure or the purpose of a power_port_template in NetBox. It also does not clarify that device_type must be an existing ID.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 75%, and the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions. The response_format parameter is mentioned but already well-described in schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new power_port_template in NetBox', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get, update, list, delete by the verb and resource naming.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Includes a guideline to 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run', but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites like ensuring the device_type exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate it's a mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds 'adds a new row' (redundant) and return format. It provides a dry-run caution, which adds some behavioral context but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or idempotency. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three tightly written sentences covering purpose, caution, and return format. No extraneous content. Efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the schema descriptions cover most parameters and the return format is explained, the description is fairly complete. It could improve by mentioning potential validation errors or uniqueness constraints, but overall it's adequate for a create tool with 8 parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 63%, so the schema already describes most parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new provider_network in NetBox') and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling create tools by specifying the object type. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage guidance is 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run,' which is a safety precaution but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other create tools or update tools). No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it creates a new row and mentions dry-run consideration, which is helpful. However, it does not clarify if the operation is idempotent (annotations say false) or what happens on duplicate name. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with three short sentences and a return line. It front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence ('This adds a new row') is somewhat redundant but not harmful. Overall, it earns its space efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description provides minimal context beyond creation. It mentions return formats but lacks explanation of the rear port's role in NetBox, relationship to front ports, or required parent object (device). The dry-run instruction is good, but more context would help the agent use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 73%, so many parameters are already explained (e.g., name, type, device_id). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The 'Returns' line mentions output formats, which implicitly relates to the response_format parameter, but is not tied to parameter semantics directly. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new rear_port in NetBox', using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly mentions adding a new row, making the action unambiguous. The tool name and title reinforce this, and while sibling tools include other creation tools, the description's specificity to rear ports avoids confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description instructs to 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run', which provides a clear usage guideline for cautious execution. However, it does not differentiate this tool from alternatives like netbox_create_front_port or netbox_update_rear_port, nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., device must exist). The guideline is useful but incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description claims PATCH semantics (only provided fields changed) which is non-destructive, but annotations include destructiveHint=true, contradicting the description. This misleads the agent about potential data destruction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose, usage, return format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately describes return options (markdown/json). Missing error behavior or prerequisites, but acceptable for an update tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 44% (4 of 9 parameters documented). The description adds general PATCH usage guidance but does not elaborate on the 5 undocumented parameters, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update', the resource 'existing asn in NetBox', and specifies 'PATCH semantics'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from create, get, or delete siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It instructs to supply the numeric 'id' and only fields to change, and that omitting fields leaves them unchanged. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the context of an update tool is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying PATCH semantics and return format (Markdown default). Annotations already give readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true; the description aligns and adds context on behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each with clear purpose: tool identity and semantics, usage instructions, return format. No fluff, front-loaded with key verb and PATCH semantics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, 50% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description lacks detailed parameter guidance (e.g., meaning of name, label, position). It does not explain prerequisites or mutability of fields, making it incomplete for an update tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%, but the description does not explain the undocumented parameters (name, label, position, description). It only reiterates the PATCH behavior. The description fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing module_bay' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes PATCH semantics from full update, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_module_bay or delete_module_bay.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear instructions: supply numeric id and only changed fields, omit to leave unchanged. It implies when to use (updating specific fields) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but description only mentions PATCH semantics without warning about potential data loss or side effects. The return format is mentioned, but not the behavior on omitted fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is five sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. Very concise but could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate but missing details on error handling, destructive implications, and more nuanced parameter interactions for a 12-parameter tool without output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%; description adds general usage guidance but does not explain individual parameters like rd, tenant, enforce_unique. Baseline score justified by partial complementary info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies 'Update an existing vrf in NetBox' with clear verb and resource, and distinguishes PATCH semantics from other operations. It differentiates from sibling tools like create and delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear instructions: 'Supply the numeric id and only the fields you want to change.' Implicitly tells when to use (update) but lacks explicit comparison with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of 'Create' and 'adds a new row' is consistent but adds limited additional behavioral context. The description does reveal output format options (markdown vs. JSON), but it doesn't discuss idempotency, error handling, or uniqueness constraints, which are partially covered by annotations and schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three short sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every sentence serves a clear role (purpose, safety instruction, return format). No waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has 8 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers the return format but not the full response structure. It omits mention of nesting (parent parameter) and validation rules, though these are partially covered by the schema. For a moderately complex creation tool, the description is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 88%, meaning the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description does not harm but also doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('asset_role'), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling creation tools by naming the exact object type, making it easy for the agent to identify.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a safety guideline ('Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run'), which is helpful for a mutation tool. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus other creation tools (e.g., netbox_create_role) or any exclusions. The usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that it 'adds a new row' and advises asking about dry-run, which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It could be more streamlined but is not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return format (markdown vs json). It covers the essential behavior for a create tool, though it omits details about nested objects like custom_fields, which are already in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 71% (above 50%), so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new cluster_group in NetBox', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get, update, delete, and list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a guideline to ask before calling if the user wants a dry-run. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context compared to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent. Description adds 'This adds a new row' and return format options. No additional behavioral context like side effects or requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is brief (3 sentences + returns line). Front-loaded with purpose. The dry-run instruction is slightly out of place but overall efficient. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Describes creation, confirmation need, and output options. Input schema covers parameters well. Missing: no explanation of what a cluster_type is or its role (e.g., used by clusters), but not critical given schema detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 71% (5/7 parameters described). The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new cluster_type in NetBox.' The verb 'Create' and resource 'cluster_type' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling CRUD tools like update, delete, get, list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Includes a useful caution to 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run.' However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., other create tools) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states that the tool adds a new row (side effect) and instructs to ask for a dry-run, which adds value beyond the annotations (non-readOnly, non-idempotent). It also describes the return format options. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then a behavioral note, then return format. Every sentence serves a purpose with no filler. It is appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description provides return format details. It covers creation, side effects, and dry-run instruction. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., device must exist) and error handling, but is reasonably complete for a create operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 70% description coverage, leaving parameters like 'label', 'speed', 'description', and 'mark_connected' without schema descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics; it only explains the return format. For a moderate coverage, the description should have compensated but did not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new console_port in NetBox', which identifies the verb (create) and the specific resource (console_port). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create other object types, like netbox_create_interface or netbox_create_console_server_port.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run', which is a behavioral instruction but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update, delete, or other create tools). It lacks context for prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description's statement that it 'adds a new row' is consistent but adds little beyond that. It does describe the output format (Markdown or JSON), which is helpful, but lacks details on side effects, authentication, or data validation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: three short sentences covering purpose, usage guidance, and return format. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (17 parameters, no output schema) and large sibling list, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain the role of device_type in NetBox, relationships to other objects, or provide examples, which would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 76% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents most parameters. The description does not provide additional parameter-specific explanations beyond what is in the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new device_type in NetBox' and 'This adds a new row to NetBox.' It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('device_type'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like netbox_get_device_type or netbox_update_device_type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run,' which provides a usage guideline. However, it does not elaborate on when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites or context for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description confirms it adds a new row and suggests a dry-run, adding context beyond annotations. No contradictions detected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose. It could be slightly improved by front-loading the return format, but overall it is efficient and free of fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers return format (markdown or JSON) but lacks details on error handling, prerequisites, or constraints like ensuring the device and rear_port exist. For a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, this is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not elaborate on any parameters. Although the input schema has 67% description coverage, the description adds no additional semantic value for parameters, missing an opportunity to explain complex fields like color or custom_fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and resource 'front_port' in NetBox. It distinguishes from siblings like netbox_update_front_port and netbox_list_front_ports by being the only creation tool for this resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises to 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run', which gives usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or prerequisites like needing a valid device_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns about asking for a dry-run, indicating a cautious approach to mutations. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false) already signal a write operation, but the description reinforces this with a practical usage note.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences covering purpose, a usage advisory, and return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks explanation of module_type context, parameter relationships, error handling, or detailed return structure, making it incomplete for confident use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, and the description adds no parameter-specific information. It does not compensate for the undocumented parameters (e.g., weight, comments, custom_fields), leaving the agent without additional clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new module_type in NetBox' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools that perform other operations like update or delete, and from other create tools by naming the specific resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a safety guideline to ask before calling for a dry-run, which is useful context. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update or other create tools), leaving usage selection implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the note about dry-run and explains the return format options (Markdown vs JSON), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not detail authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three sentences front-load the purpose and key notes. No redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return format and a usage caution. However, it does not explain what a provider is, prerequisites, or parameter relationships, leaving some gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 75% schema description coverage, the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the 'response_format' parameter's effect (Markdown vs JSON). It does not compensate for the two undocumented parameters (comments, description) in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new provider in NetBox' – a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('provider'). The tool name and title reinforce this. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like netbox_get_provider or netbox_delete_provider by the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises to 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run,' which provides some context for safe usage. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., netbox_update_provider) or specify when this tool should be chosen over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description notes that the tool 'adds a new row to NetBox' and includes a dry-run caution. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, lacking details on authentication requirements or idempotency implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, followed by a usage note and return format. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 29 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits prerequisites (e.g., site must exist), common pitfalls (e.g., duplicate names), and does not elaborate on the complexity of rack creation. The returns section is helpful but insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any parameters beyond the input schema. With only 69% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for undocumented parameters (e.g., serial, asset_tag, comments). It adds no additional meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Create a new rack in NetBox', specifying the verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_get_rack, netbox_update_rack, and netbox_delete_rack.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a specific guideline: 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run.' This advises caution before execution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like netbox_update_rack for modifications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds that it adds a new row and advises dry-run caution, but lacks disclosure of potential side effects like duplicate name/slug errors or permission requirements. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise with three sentences: clear purpose, usage caution, and return value explanation. Each sentence is necessary and front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects like custom_fields, no output schema), the description adequately explains returns but lacks context about the site_group object's purpose, nesting (parent parameter), or relation to sites. Adequate but could be more helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (86%), so the schema mostly documents parameters. The description adds value only for the response_format parameter by explaining its return format. No additional parameter insights beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Create a new site_group in NetBox', with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_site_group, update_site_group, delete_site_group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a caution to 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run', which guides safe usage. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool over alternatives like create_site or when prerequisites are needed (e.g., parent site group existence).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it creates a new row and specifies the return format, but no additional behavioral traits like permissions, side effects, or error handling. It adds some value but not much beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a brief returns note. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place. The main action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description mentions the return format (Markdown or JSON), which is helpful. However, it does not describe the structure of the created object, permissions, or potential errors. Adequate but could be more comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is high (86%), with descriptions for most parameters. The description does not provide extra parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Create a new virtual_circuit_termination in NetBox', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like update and delete for the same resource, as well as create tools for other resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a dry-run caution ('Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run'), indicating a guideline for use. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor compares to alternatives like update or list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature. The description adds context about return format and a safety caution (dry-run), but does not provide deeper behavioral details like side effects or permissions. With annotations present, the description provides moderate added value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: three sentences covering purpose, a behavioral note, and return format. No redundant or irrelevant information, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (22 parameters, no output schema, no examples), the description lacks critical guidance on parameter combinations (e.g., need for cluster or device_id), prerequisites, or error handling. While the return format is noted, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 22 parameters with 50% description coverage. The tool description does not elaborate on any parameter meanings, expected values, or usage patterns beyond the schema. It fails to compensate for the parameters that are undocumented in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new virtual_machine in NetBox', specifying the verb (create) and resource (virtual_machine). It distinguishes from numerous sibling tools that perform other operations on VMs or different objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises to ask the user if they want a dry-run before calling, providing a clear usage guideline for non-idempotent operations. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like update or get, though the purpose is self-evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable context about cascading deletes, irreversibility, and the HTTP 204 response, which goes beyond structured info.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with purpose. The cascade examples are somewhat verbose but provide important context for safe usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, cascade behavior, irreversibility, and return value. It is adequate for a simple delete tool with annotations, though it could mention requiring user confirmation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema's parameter description. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool deletes a circuit_type by numeric id. It is specific and action-oriented. However, it does not differentiate from the many sibling delete tools beyond the object type name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when needing to delete a circuit_type and emphasizes caution with cascading deletes and confirmation. No explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond the annotations: it explicitly states 'DESTRUCTIVE and IRREVERSIBLE', explains cascading deletes with examples, and describes the HTTP response. This provides rich behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise with three short paragraphs. It is well-structured: purpose, warning, and return. Could be slightly more compact, but no unnecessary content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool (one parameter, destructive annotation, no output schema), the description provides complete context: what it does, cascading effect, return confirmation, and need for user confirmation. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the 'id' parameter. The description adds only minimal extra context ('numeric id'), which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete a contact') and the resource ('from NetBox by numeric id'). While it's specific and unambiguous, it does not explicitly differentiate from other delete tools among siblings, which would merit a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., updating a contact to disable instead). The description only warns about destructiveness but omits when to choose deletion over other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly warns that the operation is destructive and irreversible, and explains cascade deletion with concrete examples (e.g., deleting a device removes its interfaces). This adds significant value beyond the destructiveHint annotation, detailing the scope of impact and requiring user confirmation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with separate sections: the action, the warning about destructive behavior with cascade examples, the need for user confirmation, and the response. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action, the destructive nature with cascade specifics, the response format, and a safeguard (confirm with user). It lacks explicit mention of error handling (e.g., 404 if id not found), but that is standard behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema with 'Numeric id of the module_bay to delete.' The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a module_bay from NetBox by numeric id.' The verb 'delete' and resource 'module_bay' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other delete tools for similar objects (e.g., netbox_delete_module), but the resource name is distinct enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., the module bay must exist) or when not to use it (e.g., if it is referenced elsewhere).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It explains that the operation is destructive, irreversible, and triggers cascading deletes with examples, and notes the HTTP 204 response. This adds detail beyond the annotations that already mark it as destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main action, followed by warnings and response details. Every sentence adds value, though the cascading examples could be slightly more compressed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, destructive nature, cascading behavior, need for user confirmation, and response. It lacks mention of error responses but is still adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage and already describes the 'id' parameter as a numeric id. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond 'by numeric id'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'Delete' and resource 'virtual_circuit_termination' are clearly stated, and it specifies deletion by numeric id. However, it does not differentiate this tool from other delete tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises confirming the object and cascading effects with the user before calling, which provides usage guidance. But it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide safety profile; description adds PATCH semantics detail and return format options. Lacks side-effect disclosure, but idempotentHint aligns with PATCH behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four concise sentences front-loading purpose, usage, and return information. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. Does not describe most parameters or provide examples; return format is specified but not detailed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 15% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only mentions 'id' and 'response_format'. No explanation of other 11 parameters leaves a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an existing interface_template, specifying PATCH semantics and distinguishing from create/get/delete siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states that only provided fields are changed and omitted fields remain unchanged, giving clear usage instructions. However, no mention of when not to use or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds context about PATCH semantics and output format (markdown vs JSON). However, it does not elaborate on side effects, persistence of changes, or error scenarios, which would be helpful for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of three sentences that efficiently convey the purpose, usage pattern, and output format. It is front-loaded with the most important information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema), the description is insufficient for full understanding. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., needing the id from a previous query), relationships, or validation rules, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at only 27%, the description does not compensate by explaining parameter meanings or constraints beyond what is in the schema. It only instructs to supply id and fields to change, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics from parameter names and schema enums.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an existing IP address using PATCH semantics. It specifies the resource ('ip_address') and the action ('update'), and distinguishes from creation by requiring an 'id' and from deletion by nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage instructions: supply the numeric 'id' and only the fields to change, noting that omitted fields remain unchanged. It also explains the output format options with a recommendation for chaining. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_ip_address or delete_ip_address.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds PATCH semantics and return format options, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose and behavior. It is efficient but could expand slightly on parameter usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 16 parameters and nested objects, the description covers update semantics and response format but omits guidance on enums, custom_fields structure, and chaining usage for the json format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 38% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining the many undocumented parameters (e.g., vrf, role, vlan, mark_utilized). The agent must rely on parameter names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an existing prefix in NetBox using PATCH semantics. It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_create_prefix and netbox_delete_prefix by specifying 'update' and 'existing'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description instructs to supply only the numeric id and fields to change, and notes that omitted fields remain unchanged. However, it does not explicitly contrast with read or create operations for the same resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context about PATCH semantics and return format, which is helpful beyond annotations. However, with destructiveHint=true, it does not detail what destructive effects might occur (e.g., changing status to 'retired'). Annotations already classify the tool as non-read-only and destructive, so the bar is lower, but some behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with four focused sentences. It front-loads the key PATCH semantics and structures the guidance logically. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count (19), low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address nested objects (custom_fields), default values, behavior of array fields like tags, and does not sufficiently describe return structure or the implications of the destructiveHint annotation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is very low (26%), but the description adds minimal parameter semantics. It only mentions the 'id' and that other fields are optional for updates. It does not explain the meaning or impact of fields like 'status', 'custom_fields', or 'tags', which would help an agent select values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update', the resource 'an existing site in NetBox', and specifies PATCH semantics. This distinguishes it from create or delete operations and indicates partial updates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit instructions: supply the numeric 'id' and only fields to change, and omitting a field leaves it unchanged. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like netbox_create_site, but the context of 'update' implies it is for existing sites only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses PATCH semantics and partial updates, but does not address the destructiveHint annotation (true) or warn about potential data overwrites. The return format options are mentioned, but behavioral impact beyond update is not covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two paragraphs and a 'Returns' section. It front-loads key information. Could be improved with bullet points for clarity, but overall no unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the update mechanism and response format options but does not describe what a Markdown summary looks like, error cases, or prerequisites (e.g., needing the id from a get/list call).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%; the description does not add meaning for undocumented parameters like 'role', 'interface', 'description', or 'virtual_circuit'. It only reiterates the id requirement and response_format option. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update'), the resource ('virtual_circuit_termination'), and the PATCH semantics. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create' and 'get' by specifying it updates an existing term by id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Supply the numeric id and only the fields you want to change. Omitting a field leaves it unchanged.' This clearly tells the agent how to use it, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like create or get, though context implies it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (which are minimal), the description adds behavioral context: it is a write operation that adds a row, requires user confirmation for dry-run, and specifies the need for exactly one hardware type. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three paragraphs, each focused: purpose, dry-run advice, hardware type constraint, and return format. No superfluous sentences, but could be slightly more structured with bullet points for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 26 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: creation action, dry-run sensitivity, hardware type constraint, and return format options. It does not explain the asset concept or relationships, but is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 92% schema coverage, the description adds value by explicitly stating the mutual exclusivity constraint among hardware type parameters (device_type, module_type, inventoryitem_type, rack_type), which is not obvious from the schema alone. This enhances parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create a new asset in NetBox' with a clear verb and resource. While it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling create tools like netbox_create_device, the specificity of 'asset' vs 'device' is evident from the tool name and context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides the important guideline to ask before calling for a dry-run, and the constraint that exactly one hardware type must be set. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like netbox_create_device, leaving usage context implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds behavioral detail: 'This adds a new row' confirms database insertion, and 'Ask before calling...' suggests a precaution. Return format options are also disclosed. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two sentences plus a 'Returns:' line) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The phrase 'This adds a new row to NetBox' is slightly redundant but overall concise without unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description covers the essential aspects: creation purpose, safety check (dry-run), and output format. However, it lacks explanation of what a circuit_group is, prerequisites, or parameter dependencies, which may leave gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is high (71%), and the description does not elaborate on any parameters beyond what the schema provides. The description adds no new insight into parameter meaning or usage beyond the schema's own descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Create a new circuit_group in NetBox', clearly indicating the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like netbox_update_circuit_group and netbox_get_circuit_group, which involve updating or retrieving, not creating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises to 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run', which is a usage guideline for safety. However, it does not compare with alternatives like updating or listing, nor specify prerequisites or contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds transparency by noting that it adds a new row to NetBox and by describing the return format (Markdown or JSON). It also includes a caution about dry-run, which aids in understanding the tool's irreversible effect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three sentences plus a return line) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is structured with a brief overview, an important usage note, and return format information. No extraneous content, though it could be slightly more organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 16 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and a key usage caveat (dry-run). However, it lacks details on relationships (e.g., how inventory items relate to devices) or prerequisites. It is adequate for a straightforward creation tool but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not detail individual parameters beyond the schema's built-in descriptions (coverage 63%). It hints at the response_format parameter by stating the return format choices, but does not explain other parameters. The schema itself provides moderate coverage, so the description adds only minimal extra meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new inventory_item in NetBox', specifying the verb (create) and resource (inventory_item). The title and tool name reinforce this. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools (e.g., netbox_update_inventory_item, netbox_delete_inventory_item) by resource and action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises asking before calling if a dry-run is desired, which is useful for a write operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like netbox_update_inventory_item or netbox_list_inventory_items. Usage context is implied by the tool name but not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool performs a write operation (consistent with readOnlyHint=false) and specifies the return format (Markdown by default or JSON). It also advises asking about dry-runs, adding context beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes essential behavioral notes without extraneous content. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively minimal. It covers the return format but does not explain the relationship to other NetBox tools or provide context on when to use it over similar tools. It is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67% (high), so the schema already describes parameters adequately. The description does not add additional semantics for parameters, but the baseline is 3. No parameter information is missing from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new ip_range in NetBox', which is a specific verb and resource. It also explains that it adds a new row. This distinguishes it from other sibling tools that create different objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a guideline to ask before calling if a dry-run is desired, which is a useful caution. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice, nor does it contrast with alternative tools like netbox_create_prefix or netbox_create_ip_address.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond annotations by stating 'This adds a new row' (confirming a create operation) and describing the return format. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose and return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the return format (markdown or JSON) but does not detail the response structure. Given no output schema, this is adequate but could be more complete, e.g., highlighting that the tool creates a persistent resource.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 75% (6 of 8 params have descriptions). The description does not add meaning for the uncovered parameters (comments, description) beyond what the schema provides. It mentions response_format indirectly but does not compensate for missing parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new tenant in NetBox' and 'This adds a new row to NetBox', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_update_tenant and netbox_create_tenant_group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Includes a caution to ask before calling if the user wants a dry-run, which provides some guidance. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like netbox_update_tenant or netbox_list_tenants.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutation, and description adds context about side effects (ask before calling) and return format (Markdown or JSON), which adds value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise at two sentences plus a return note. Front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence is meaningful, though the return section could be integrated more concisely.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given high schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and side effects but lacks details on prerequisites or when to use this tool over others.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is high (86%), so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. No parameter-specific explanations beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action 'Create' and the resource 'tenant_group'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get/update/delete by using the verb 'create'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides some guidance by instructing to ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds context about creating a new row and the response format option, and cautions about dry-run. No contradictions, and it adds value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences plus a Returns section. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes a critical usage note. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters (3 required) and nested objects, the description covers the creation action, dry-run caution, and output options. It lacks detail on custom_fields or prerequisites, but the schema fills most gaps. Reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 86% (high), so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning, such as 'size in MB' and the response_format options. It does not significantly enhance understanding of parameters beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new virtual_disk in NetBox' and mentions it adds a new row. The verb and resource are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from other create tools; however, the name and context suffice.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a guideline to ask before calling if a dry-run is wanted, which implies cautious usage. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives like update or get.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds 'This adds a new row to NetBox' which is consistent but not new. No contradictions. No additional behavioral traits like authorization or rate limits are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a 'Returns' line. It is front-loaded with the action and includes a clear instruction and return behavior. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what a virtual_machine_type is, provide examples, or describe the effect of optional parameters. The return format information is helpful but insufficient for a complex create operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 60%, so the schema already documents many parameters. The description adds value by explaining the return format ('Markdown summary...or JSON') for the response_format parameter, but does not elaborate on other parameters like default_vcpus or comments. The dry-run mention does not relate to specific parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new virtual_machine_type in NetBox' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_get/update/delete_virtual_machine_type by explicitly saying 'new'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a clear usage guideline: 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run.' This helps the agent know to get confirmation before creating. However, it does not provide broader context on when to use this tool versus other create tools, but the dry-run instruction is valuable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds PATCH semantics context and return format options. However, it does not explain what 'destructive' means in this context or discuss auth, rate limits, or side effects of modifying certain fields. It adds some value beyond annotations but misses important behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: three sentences covering purpose, required input, and return format. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (14 params, no output schema, destructiveHint annotation), the description is adequate for basic updates but lacks details on parameter behavior, default values, and potential side effects. It does not explain how tags or custom_fields are handled or the meaning of term_side/termination_id.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 14 parameters and only 29% schema description coverage, the description does little to compensate. It provides a general note about partial updates but does not explain individual parameters like tags, term_side, or custom_fields. The mention of response_format is implicit but helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an existing circuit_termination using PATCH semantics, specifying that only provided fields are changed. It distinguishes itself from get, create, list, and delete siblings by its focus on partial updates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs to supply the numeric 'id' and only the fields to change, and notes that omitting a field leaves it unchanged. It provides clear usage context but does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives like get_circuit_termination for viewing current state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide safety hints (idempotent, destructive). The description adds behavioral detail: PATCH semantics (only provided fields change) and return format options (markdown default or JSON). This adds value beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose error behavior or consequences of invalid inputs, which would be beneficial for complete transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three sentences) with front-loaded purpose and clear structure: statement of action, usage rule, and return format. It is efficient and avoids verbosity. A minor improvement could be using bullet points for readability, but it remains effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to populate parameters like 'type', 'group', 'status', nor how to interpret the response structure beyond format. Missing guidance on prerequisites (e.g., need a valid cluster ID) and related tools (e.g., netbox_get_cluster to retrieve current state). The return format description is helpful but insufficient for complete context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (31%). The description only binds the 'id' parameter and implies other fields are optional. It does not explain the meaning or constraints of parameters like 'type', 'group', 'status', 'tenant', etc. No additional semantic information is provided for the majority of parameters, which is insufficient to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an existing cluster in NetBox using PATCH semantics. It explicitly mentions the resource (cluster) and the action (update), and distinguishes from creation by specifying 'existing' and PATCH behavior. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description instructs to supply the numeric 'id' and only fields to change, and that omitting fields leaves them unchanged. This is clear guidance for usage. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use vs. alternatives' (e.g., create vs. update) and prerequisites like needing the cluster to exist, though these are implied by the operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses PATCH semantics and that omitted fields remain unchanged, which adds context beyond annotations (openWorldHint, idempotentHint). Also mentions return format options. No contradiction with annotations. Missing some behavioral details like error handling, but sufficient given annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with no wasted words: states purpose, usage instruction, and return format. Front-loaded with the core action. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers basic update semantics and return format but lacks information on prerequisites (e.g., object must exist), edge cases, or error conditions. For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, additional context would be beneficial. Adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 40%, the description adds no additional parameter details beyond noting the id is required and that fields can be omitted. It does not explain the meaning or constraints of other parameters like type, speed, mark_connected, etc., leaving gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Update an existing console_port in NetBox (PATCH semantics — only provided fields are changed).' The verb 'Update' is specific and the resource 'console_port' is precise. It implicitly distinguishes from create, delete, get, and list siblings, though not explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides usage instructions: 'Supply the numeric id and only the fields you want to change. Omitting a field leaves it unchanged.' However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., create or get) or provide exclusions. The guidance is adequate but minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate write and destructive behavior. The description adds context by clarifying PATCH semantics, that omitted fields are unchanged, and the return format options. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with purpose and semantics. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise by omitting the return bullet.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 18 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanations of field meanings, prerequisites, and examples, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (22%). The description only mentions the id parameter and general usage instructions, failing to explain semantics of other important parameters like manufacturer or tags.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an existing device_type in NetBox, specifies PATCH semantics, and distinguishes it from sibling tools by naming the resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains how to use the tool: supply the numeric id and only fields to change. It implies the tool is for updates, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like create or delete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description does not expand on. The description adds PATCH semantics and the fact that only provided fields are changed, but does not disclose potential side effects or irreversibility beyond the annotation. No contradiction found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with 4 sentences, front-loading the purpose and PATCH semantics. It could be slightly more concise but effectively communicates key points without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers return format options but does not explain complex parameters like assigned_object_id/assigned_object_type or provide full behavioral context. It is adequate but has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (44%) and the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like id, tags, custom_fields, response_format. It reiterates the general PATCH behavior but lacks parameter-specific semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the verb 'update', the resource 'mac_address', and the method 'PATCH semantics'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_create_mac_address and netbox_delete_mac_address by specifying that only provided fields are changed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance to supply the numeric 'id' and only fields to change, with a note that omitting fields leaves them unchanged. It implicitly directs when to use this tool over create or delete, but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the PATCH semantics (only provided fields changed) and the response format option, which goes beyond annotations. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what happens if the id doesn't exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences: purpose, usage instruction, and return value. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema. The description covers only id, patch semantics, and response format. It does not explain the contents of the returned Markdown or JSON, nor does it provide examples or edge cases. Adequate but has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 22% (only id and response_format have descriptions). The description only explains id and response_format via text, leaving the remaining 7 parameters (name, type, label, feed_leg, power_port, description, device_type) without explanation. The description does not compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing power_outlet_template in NetBox' using a specific verb and resource. It also mentions PATCH semantics, which differentiates it from create and delete sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit instructions: 'Supply the numeric id and only the fields you want to change. Omitting a field leaves it unchanged.' This tells the agent how and when to use the tool. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds PATCH semantics and response format details but does not elaborate on the destructive nature hinted by destructiveHint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at 3 sentences, front-loaded with key information, and contains no unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the number of parameters and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but lacks explanation of what a rear_port is and how updates affect related objects like front ports.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 36%, yet the description does not add parameter-specific information beyond general guidance. It fails to compensate for the low coverage by explaining important fields like type, positions, or color.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'rear_port', and specifies PATCH semantics. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_rear_port and delete_rear_port.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs to supply only the numeric 'id' and the fields to change, and that omitted fields remain unchanged. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or delete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotent and destructive hints. Description adds PATCH semantics and response format details. However, it does not clarify the destructiveHint: true implication (e.g., clearing fields) or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences plus a returns note, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value with no verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Explains return formats (Markdown/JSON) and PATCH behavior. Lacks explanation of destructive side effects (e.g., clearing fields) and does not differentiate from other update tools. Output schema absent, but response format described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 50% description coverage. The description reiterates that only provided fields change but adds no individual parameter details beyond what schema provides. No compensation for undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing role in NetBox (PATCH semantics)', specifying the verb (update), resource (role), and method. It distinguishes from create/delete sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Instructs to 'Supply the numeric id and only the fields you want to change. Omitting a field leaves it unchanged.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance for partial updates, though no explicit alternatives or when-not-to scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true) and idempotent (idempotentHint: true). The description adds 'PATCH semantics' which reinforces idempotency, but does not elaborate on any side effects or additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a return line. It front-loads the key behavior ('PATCH semantics') and keeps every sentence essential. No redundant or wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context on the update semantics and response format. However, it lacks details on parameter constraints (e.g., slug pattern, parent options) and custom_fields validation, leaving gaps for the agent to infer from the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (only id and response_format have descriptions). The description does not provide additional meaning for the undocumented parameters (name, slug, tags, parent, description, custom_fields). It only says to include the fields to change, which is a general guideline, not specific parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing site_group' with PATCH semantics. The verb 'update' and resource 'site_group' are explicit, and the tool is distinguished from sibling tools like get, create, and delete by the update action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage guidance: 'Supply the numeric 'id' and only the fields you want to change. Omitting a field leaves it unchanged.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (partial updates). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though the context of siblings implies differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotent and destructive behavior. The description adds value by explicitly stating PATCH semantics and return format options (markdown vs JSON). It does not disclose potential side effects or permission requirements, but the annotations cover the core safety profile sufficiently.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the operation and semantics, providing usage instructions, and describing the return value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. Highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 23 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the return format but does not detail error handling, field validation, or the structure of the markdown summary. The description partially compensates but leaves gaps for a comprehensive understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 17% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter details. It merely instructs to supply the fields to change without explaining individual parameter semantics. The schema itself has sparse descriptions for most fields, and the description adds no additional meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an existing virtual_machine using PATCH semantics. It identifies the resource (virtual_machine) and action (update), and distinguishes from create/delete by context. The description is specific and avoids ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use this tool: to modify an existing VM by supplying the numeric 'id' and only fields to change. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for creating or deleting (e.g., netbox_create_virtual_machine), which could improve guidance. The usage context is clear but lacks explicit alternative linkage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context about PATCH semantics and id requirement, but does not elaborate on behaviors beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds value by clarifying that only provided fields change, but does not explain any potential side effects or auth needs. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short paragraphs, front-loading the core semantics (PATCH, id, fields to change) and then output format. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, nested objects), the description is somewhat complete by specifying update semantics and output. However, it does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., bridge, parent, tagged_vlans) or describe the return structure beyond format choice. Adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description only adds minimal meaning to id (numeric) and response_format (output choices). With schema description coverage of 29%, many parameters like mtu, vrf, mode, bridge, parent, etc. are not explained in the description. The description does not compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an existing vm_interface in NetBox with PATCH semantics, specifying the verb 'update', the resource 'vm_interface', and the behavior. It differentiates from create/get siblings by emphasizing partial updates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description instructs to supply the numeric 'id' and only fields to change, implying when to use (update) versus create. It also explains the response_format parameter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with netbox_create_vm_interface or netbox_get_vm_interface, nor mention prerequisites like existing interface.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description states 'This adds a new row to NetBox,' which clarifies the mutating effect beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false). It also details return formats (markdown or JSON). No contradictions with annotations. Slightly lacking on side effects like uniqueness constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise (three sentences) and front-loaded: purpose, behavioral note, and return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description adequately covers return options. However, it lacks context such as uniqueness of ASN numbers, required permissions, or relationship to other objects (e.g., RIR). This is sufficient for a simple create tool but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 63%, and the description does not add any additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The description of the return format is about output, not parameters. Baseline score of 3 applies as schema does most of the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states 'Create a new asn in NetBox,' which is a clear verb+resource pair. The tool name and title confirm the action, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like netbox_create_asn_range.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description advises to ask for a dry-run before calling, indicating caution for a write operation. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like netbox_update_asn or netbox_create_asn_range, nor does it specify prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and not destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds 'This adds a new row to NetBox' but that's largely redundant. The mention of return format and dry-run consideration provides some additional context, but overall depth is moderate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short paragraphs. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value (e.g., dry-run instruction, return format). No wasteful wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, create operation, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and return format but lacks details on prerequisites, error handling, or post-creation behavior. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 83%, so schema already explains most parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema; it only explains the return format via the response_format parameter. Thus, value added is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Create a new contact_role in NetBox' and the resource. It immediately distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_get_contact_role, netbox_update_contact_role, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a specific guideline to ask the user before calling if a dry-run is desired, which aids safe usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint false). The description adds value by noting the dry-run consideration and the return format options, which are beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with three short sentences: action, safety reminder, and return format. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters (4 required), nested custom_fields, and enum interface_type, the description does not explain the domain concept of an FHRP group assignment (e.g., it links an interface to a group). The return format is covered, but missing domain context reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details; the schema already handles that adequately. No additional semantic value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new fhrp_group_assignment') and the resource, aligning with the tool name and title. It is distinct from sibling tools (list, get, update, delete) and includes no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied for a create tool, but the description lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., when to create versus update). The dry-run note adds caution but does not define context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's confirmation instruction ('Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run') adds valuable behavioral context for a write operation. It also transparently describes the return format options, which annotations do not cover.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only three sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, behavioral note, and return format. There is no redundant or extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools (update, delete, list, get), the description covers core purpose and return format but omits important context: prerequisites (e.g., device_id must exist), duplicate handling, and when to use this versus update. The dry-run instruction is helpful but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for 6 of 8 parameters (75% coverage). The tool description does not add any additional parameter information beyond what is in the schema, and fails to compensate for the two unlabeled parameters ('label', 'description').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new module_bay in NetBox', which combines a specific verb ('Create') with the resource ('module_bay'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like netbox_update_module_bay, netbox_delete_module_bay, and netbox_get_module_bay.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run', which provides a basic usage precaution. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., netbox_update_module_bay) or prerequisites (e.g., device existence).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds clarity by stating 'This adds a new row to NetBox' and describing the return format (markdown or JSON), which is beyond annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences plus a returns line. Every sentence serves a purpose (action, safety guidance, output format). No redundant or unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, annotations provided), the description covers the essential behavioral context: it's a write operation, includes a safety warning, and explains output options. It could mention how to use custom_fields or nested objects, but the schema partially covers that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 55%, so many parameters lack descriptions in schema. The tool description does not add meaning for those undocumented parameters (e.g., tenant, comments, provider_account). It only adds guidance for response_format ('Use json when chaining follow-up tool calls'). Overall, the description compensates little for the gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'virtual_circuit', and distinguishes among siblings that also target virtual_circuits (e.g., update, delete, get, list). The phrase 'This adds a new row to NetBox' reinforces the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run', which is a useful safety guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like updating an existing virtual circuit, or any prerequisites. The guidance is minimal but present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, but the description adds significant value by explaining that the delete is irreversible, that NetBox cascades deletes (with examples), and that there is no undo. It also clarifies that confirmation from the user is needed. This goes beyond the annotation's binary flag.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. It starts with the purpose in one sentence, then provides important behavioral warnings, and ends with expected return value. Every sentence adds value, though the cascade examples are a bit lengthy and could be more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one simple parameter and no output schema. The description explains the return confirmation (HTTP 204), which compensates for the lack of output schema. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, warnings, and result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description states 'by numeric id', which matches the schema's 'id' parameter. However, with schema coverage at 100% and only one parameter, the description does not add new semantic information. It simply restates what the schema already defines. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a rack_reservation from NetBox by numeric id', providing a specific verb ('delete'), resource ('rack_reservation'), and mechanism ('by numeric id'). This distinguishes it from other tools in the sibling list, such as create or update variants.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises confirming the exact object and cascading effects with the user before calling, which provides some usage context. However, it does not differentiate this delete tool from other delete siblings (e.g., netbox_delete_rack) or specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by detailing destructiveness, irreversibility, cascade effects with concrete examples, and the HTTP 204 response. This fully informs the agent of consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is mostly concise, with purpose first, then warnings, then return info. The cascade examples add some length but are justified for transparency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple single-parameter schema and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's risk and return. Minor missing detail: no mention of what happens if the ID does not exist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers the single parameter with 100% coverage. The description mentions 'numeric id' but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a rir from NetBox by numeric id', specifying the verb (delete) and resource (rir). This distinguishes it from other delete tools by name and resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like other delete tools. It only implies usage for RIR deletion, without comparative criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds pagination details (limit, offset, auto-truncation) and output format options, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with sections for common patterns, pagination, filters, and return format. Mostly concise but the pagination section is slightly verbose. Front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers pagination, common patterns, and filters reasonably well. However, the missing parameter descriptions leave some gaps, and the complexity warrants more detail on filters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 70% schema coverage, the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It lists resource-specific filters by name but provides no descriptions for them (device_type_id, name, name__ic). The schema already documents most parameters, but these three lack description in both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List rear port templates from NetBox' and provides common patterns like discovery and lookup by id, distinguishing from the sibling netbox_get_rear_port_template.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Describes when to use this tool (listing, browsing, filtering) and explicitly advises using netbox_get_rear_port_template when you already have an id. However, it does not cover other exclusions or alternatives beyond id lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses PATCH semantics and return format options (Markdown/JSON). Annotations already indicate write operation and idempotency; description aligns and adds output format context. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences plus a return-format line, all front-loaded. No wasted words; each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 27 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. Lacks information on parameter meanings, error handling, prerequisites, and behavioral details beyond PATCH semantics. Does not cover important aspects like required permissions or identifier lookup.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 19%; description does not explain the many undocumented parameters beyond the general guidance to provide only desired fields. Only adds meaning for response_format. Insufficient compensation for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly specifies 'Update an existing asset in NetBox' with explicit mention of PATCH semantics. Distinguishes from create/delete siblings by its name and description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit instructions: supply numeric 'id' and only fields to change; omitting a field leaves it unchanged. Does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the naming convention makes the choice clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description correctly indicates PATCH semantics, which aligns with idempotentHint=true. It does not contradict annotations. It adds value by explaining the partial update behavior and return format options, though it omits potential side effects or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two clear paragraphs. The first sentence states the core purpose, and subsequent lines provide essential usage and return info. Some redundancy exists with the schema, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the basic update mechanism and return format but lacks details on how specific fields (e.g., color, custom_fields) behave when omitted or set. More context on null vs omitted would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (44%) and the description does not add meaningful details about parameters beyond the schema. It only reiterates that only provided fields are changed, without describing individual parameters or their constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'asset_role in NetBox', with explicit PATCH semantics. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, list, and delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains to supply the numeric 'id' and only fields to change, and that omitted fields remain unchanged. This provides clear usage context but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with annotations: PATCH semantics match idempotentHint=true, and 'update' matches destructiveHint=true (modification). It adds transparency by describing the return format options (Markdown vs JSON) and the default. No contradiction with annotations is present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise: three short sentences that front-load the purpose and key usage pattern. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, nested terminations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the a_terminations/b_terminations structure, the relationship between length and length_unit, or provide examples of valid values for key fields. The agent would struggle to correctly invoke this tool without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (27%), yet the description only minimally compensates by mentioning 'only the fields you want to change' and explicitly naming 'id' and 'response_format'. It does not explain the meaning or constraints of other parameters (e.g., type, color, status, a_terminations), nor does it describe the nested structure of terminations. Most parameter semantics must be inferred from the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update an existing cable'), uses a specific verb ('Update'), and specifies the resource ('cable in NetBox'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_create_cable and netbox_delete_cable by explicitly mentioning 'PATCH semantics' and 'only provided fields are changed'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage guidance: 'Supply the numeric id and only the fields you want to change. Omitting a field leaves it unchanged.' This tells the agent how to perform partial updates. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create or delete), nor does it mention prerequisites or error conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds PATCH semantics and response format details beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations like destructiveHint or idempotentHint, though it could clarify what destructive means here.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with purpose and semantics. The third paragraph on returns is somewhat verbose but still efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While it covers core semantics and usage, the lack of parameter descriptions and output schema leaves gaps. It adequately addresses annotations but could be more complete for a tool with 31 parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 13% schema coverage, the description fails to explain most parameters. It mentions response_format explicitly but provides no extra meaning for the other 30 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it updates an existing device in NetBox with PATCH semantics, distinguishing it from create and delete siblings. The verb 'update' and resource 'device' are explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It instructs to supply only the numeric 'id' and fields to change, and notes omitting leaves fields unchanged. It mentions response format options but lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds PATCH semantics and that omitted fields are unchanged, which goes beyond annotations. Annotations already provide destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but description clarifies behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, usage, return format. No fluff, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 10-parameter tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains update semantics and return options but lacks details on several parameters (e.g., rack, units, user). Agent might need to infer from context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description explains the general approach (supply only fields to change) and response_format, but does not describe individual parameters like rack, units, user, tenant. Schema coverage is 40%, so some burden remains unmet.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update an existing rack_reservation'), specifies the resource, and notes PATCH semantics. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create or delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied (supply id and fields to change) but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., vs. create or delete). No exclusion or alternative mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (which indicate idempotent, non-read-only, destructive), the description clarifies PATCH semantics, required id, optional fields, and return format. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences plus a return line. The verb and resource are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers update semantics and return formats, but lacks error handling guidance (e.g., what if id does not exist) and does not elaborate on nested objects like custom_fields. Adequate for a simple update, but gaps exist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (id, tags, custom_fields, response_format have descriptions). The description does not add specifics for undocumented parameters (name, slug, color, description), and the generic 'only fields you want to change' adds little over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it updates an existing virtual_circuit_type, specifies PATCH semantics, and requires the numeric id. This distinguishes it from create and get operations for the same resource type, which are available as sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when updating an existing record, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when the object doesn't exist, use create) or mention alternative tools like get or list for verification.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of PATCH semantics and omitting fields adds context. It also clarifies the return format (markdown or JSON). No contradiction with annotations. The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining behavioral nuances.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with three sentences. It front-loads the purpose and critical usage guidance (PATCH semantics, id requirement, return format). No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite multiple parameters and nested objects (e.g., vid_ranges, custom_fields), the description omits guidance on how to format these or which combinations are valid. For a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (33%), yet the tool description does not explain most parameters beyond 'id'. It merely says to supply only fields to change. For parameters like 'scope_type', 'vid_ranges', and 'tenant', no additional meaning is provided, leaving the agent to infer from schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update', the resource 'vlan_group', and the HTTP method 'PATCH'. It differentiates from create by requiring an existing 'id' and from delete by not indicating removal. Among siblings, create and delete tools exist, so purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance: supply an 'id' and only fields to change. It does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for creation) but implies it by requiring an existing id. More explicit exclusions would improve, but current guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide basic read/write and idempotency hints. The description adds value by noting that the tool creates a new database row and instructs to ask for a dry-run, which helps the agent understand the mutating behavior. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, with no filler. The purpose, usage note, and return format are presented efficiently in two concise paragraphs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: purpose, dry-run ask, and return format with guidance on choosing between markdown and JSON. It could mention that an RIR must exist, but schema already covers required fields. Overall it is fairly complete given the schema richness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 80% and the description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new asn_range in NetBox,' specifying the verb and resource. Although it does not explicitly differentiate from netbox_create_asn, the tool name and description make the resource type unambiguous among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises to ask for a dry-run before calling, providing some usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like netbox_create_asn or netbox_update_asn_range, and does not outline prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and no destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by mentioning the dry-run precaution and detailing the return format (Markdown summary or JSON). No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences plus a 'Returns:' section. Every sentence provides essential information with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core purpose, a usage precaution (dry-run), and output format. While it does not discuss error states or prerequisites, the presence of annotations and high schema coverage partially compensates. For a create tool of moderate complexity, it is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (83%), and the description provides an example for 'member_type' ('e.g. 'circuits.circuit' or 'circuits.virtualcircuit''), which adds clarity beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without significantly enhancing understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('circuit_group_assignment in NetBox'), with additional clarification that it 'adds a new row to NetBox.' The verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get', 'update', 'list', and 'delete' for the same resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a cautionary note to ask the user before calling if a dry-run is wanted, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update or delete). Usage context is implied by the 'create' verb, but no explicit when-not or alternative tool guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description confirms 'This adds a new row to NetBox,' aligning with a non-destructive write operation. The description adds the dry-run recommendation and notes the default output format, providing context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two short paragraphs and a 'Returns' line. Every sentence adds value (purpose, side-effect caution, output format). No redundant or vague statements.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 10 parameters with no output schema. The description covers the response format and advises caution about creation. Given high schema coverage, this is sufficient. However, it lacks details on error handling or duplicate behavior, but annotations fill some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 90%, and the schema provides detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add any parameter explanations beyond the schema. It only mentions the 'response_format' parameter regarding output format. 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new device_role in NetBox,' specifying the action (create) and the resource (device_role). Among siblings, there are other role-related tools (netbox_get_device_role, netbox_update_device_role, netbox_delete_device_role) and a separate netbox_create_role, so the specific mention of 'device_role' distinguishes this tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run,' which implies caution against unintended side-effects. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update or delete), nor does it provide conditions or prerequisites. The guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds context by stating 'This adds a new row to NetBox' and advising a dry-run check, which goes beyond the annotations. It also describes return format options.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences: purpose, caution, and return format. It is succinct, front-loaded, and every sentence provides essential information without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the parameter count (8) and no output schema, the description covers creation behavior, return options, and a caution. It lacks an explanation of the concept of a power outlet template (e.g., its relation to device types), but the required parameters are clear from the schema. Overall, fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 75%, and the description does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The schema itself has decent descriptions, so the description adds little extra meaning. With high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Create a new power_outlet_template in NetBox.' It uses a specific verb (create) and resource (power_outlet_template), distinguishing it clearly from other create tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises to 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run,' which provides a cautionary guideline. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating power outlets or other templates, nor does it outline any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.) and adds behavioral context: it states that the tool creates a new row, advises asking before calling for dry-run, and specifies the return format (Markdown or JSON). No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with three sentences covering purpose, behavioral note, and return format. The most critical information (purpose and dry-run instruction) is front-loaded. It could be slightly more streamlined by removing the redundant 'adds a new row' phrase.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 18 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return format and a safety instruction. However, it lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), error conditions (e.g., duplicate slug), or how parameters like custom_fields or tags work. Some additional context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, meaning all parameters are already explained in the schema. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Create a new site in NetBox,' which clearly states the action and resource. It is not a tautology and effectively conveys the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like netbox_update_site or netbox_delete_site, though the verb 'create' and the context make it clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a specific usage guideline: 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run.' This is helpful for a mutation tool. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update or get) or exclude any scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds a behavioral note about dry-run confirmation and specifies return formats (markdown or JSON), providing context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is three sentences, front-loads purpose, and includes essential behavioral note. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description covers return format (since no output schema) and dry-run caution. Minor gaps: no mention of uniqueness constraints on name/slug or guidance on response format selection. Still fairly complete for a create tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 71%, so parameters are mostly documented. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., return format is mentioned but already in schema). Baseline 3 due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Create a new supplier in NetBox', aligning with the tool name and distinguishing it from sibling tools like netbox_update_supplier and netbox_list_suppliers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description instructs to 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run', providing one usage caution but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like netbox_update_supplier or netbox_get_supplier.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate it's not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that it creates a new row (a write operation) and mentions the dry-run request, which implies a non-reversible action. It also discloses the return format (Markdown or JSON), adding value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: three short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose (purpose, usage caution, return format). It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. No redundant or trivial information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 14 parameters, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage, the description omits key behavioral aspects such as error conditions (e.g., duplicate VLAN ID), prerequisites (e.g., existing site/tenant IDs), and the effect of optional parameters. It is adequate but leaves gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 50% schema description coverage, the description neither lists nor explains the many optional parameters. The only parameter it touches is response_format via the returns clause. The agent must rely solely on the schema for most parameter meaning, which is insufficient given the complexity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new vlan in NetBox', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools as the sole VLAN creation tool, and the phrase 'new row' reinforces the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises to 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run', providing clear context for when to use this tool (after user confirmation). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like updating an existing VLAN.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining cascading deletes, irreversibility, and the HTTP 204 response. It provides concrete examples of cascading effects, adding significant behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is mostly concise but includes a detailed warning block with examples that could be slightly condensed. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete action with one parameter, the description covers purpose, behavior, outcome, and safety guidance comprehensively. No gaps given the tool's simplicity and annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the 'id' parameter fully (100% coverage). The description only restates 'by numeric id', adding no new semantic information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a console_port_template from NetBox by numeric id', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from its create/update/get siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or comparison with alternatives is given, but the description includes strong warnings about destructive behavior and the need for user confirmation, which implies usage care.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral information beyond what is in annotations, such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage context, third explains return format. No fluff, front-loaded with essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description explains return format (markdown or JSON) and mentions nested references. Annotations cover read-only and idempotence. Completeness is good, though could explicitly mention that it is a read operation (already in annotations).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by advising to use 'json' format when chaining follow-up tool calls, providing practical guidance beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('aggregate'), and distinguishes from sibling list tool by mentioning it is used after netbox_list_aggregates or when the id is already known.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises when to use this tool ('after netbox_list_aggregates has located the object' or 'when you already have the id'), providing clear context. Does not include explicit exclusions or alternatives for creation/update, but context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds that the tool returns a full NetBox object with nested references, which is useful but not essential. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise yet complete: 2 sentences for purpose, 1 for usage, 1 for returns. Front-loaded with the main action, no superfluous text. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, good annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: how to use, what it returns, and when to use JSON. Could be improved by listing example returned fields, but overall sufficient for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds contextual usage (e.g., 'Use after...') but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'single mac_address', and the method 'by numeric id'. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing netbox_list_mac_addresses as a precursor. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to use after netbox_list_mac_addresses or when the id is already known. Provides context for when to use JSON format for chaining. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds that it returns Markdown or JSON with nested references, providing some useful behavioral context beyond annotations, but does not disclose additional traits like potential errors or authorization requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is only three sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and return information. Every sentence is functional and front-loaded. No extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (Markdown or JSON with full object). The schema covers parameters completely. The tool is simple and the description provides enough context for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%—both parameters (id, response_format) are fully described in the schema. The description reiterates the return format but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get a single virtual_circuit_type from NetBox by numeric id', specifying the verb (get), resource (virtual_circuit_type), and method (by numeric id). It distinguishes from the sibling list tool by indicating it retrieves a single object.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Use after netbox_list_virtual_circuit_types has located the object, or when you already have the id', providing clear context for when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not include explicit when-not-to-use, but guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the behavior regarding return format (Markdown vs JSON) and mentions that JSON includes nested references. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like pagination or error conditions. Given that annotations cover safety, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides clear purpose, usage, and parameter guidance. Without an output schema, it mentions the return format (Markdown or JSON with nested references). It could be slightly more detailed about the fields returned, but for a retrieval tool with strong annotations, it is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds a slight usage hint for response_format ('Use json when chaining follow-up tool calls'), but does not add meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'vlan', specifying retrieval by numeric id. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'netbox_list_vlans' by indicating it should be used after locating the object via that tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use after netbox_list_vlans has located the object, or when you already have the id.' It also explains the purpose of the response_format parameter. While it doesn't list explicit exclusions, the context is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds crucial context about pagination auto-truncation, response format options, and pagination fields. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (common patterns, pagination, filters, returns) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It is somewhat verbose but every section earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core aspects (purpose, patterns, pagination, filters, return format). However, it lacks details on the structure of individual items in the response, which would aid the agent in interpreting results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema for many parameters (e.g., q as fuzzy text, tag with AND semantics, pagination parameters, date filters with examples). However, some parameters like name, name__ic, and device_type_id are listed but not elaborated, leaving a gap in coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists console port templates from NetBox and distinguishes from sibling tool netbox_get_console_port_template for lookups by ID. It also outlines common patterns like discovery and narrow scans.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (browsing with no filters, narrow scans with filters) and when to use an alternative (lookup by ID via get variant). However, it does not explicitly list cases where this tool should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses PATCH semantics and the return format (markdown or JSON). Annotations already indicate idempotent and destructive behavior, and the description adds value by explaining the partial update behavior and output options, with no contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three clear sentences. It front-loads the key purpose and semantics, and every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the update operation and output format but lacks context on how to obtain the 'id' (e.g., via get/list) and does not explain the broader context of aggregates in NetBox. For a moderately complex tool (10 params), it is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 40%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the meaning of many parameters like 'rir', 'prefix', 'tenant', etc. It only emphasizes the PATCH usage pattern. For a tool with 10 parameters, this is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing aggregate in NetBox' and specifies 'PATCH semantics', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_create_aggregate and netbox_delete_aggregate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that only the 'id' is required and that omitting fields leaves them unchanged. This provides clear usage context, though it could explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., for creation or deletion).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states PATCH semantics and that omitted fields remain unchanged, which adds behavioral context beyond annotations. All annotations are consistent (e.g., idempotentHint=true aligns with PATCH). No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short paragraphs plus a one-line return summary. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 15 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It covers core behavior but lacks details on field constraints, typical usage, and the structure of the returned data. Adequate for simple use but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 27% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more. It only explains that 'id' is required and fields are optional changeable, but does not elaborate on any other parameters or their typical values. Most parameters are left unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing circuit in NetBox' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling create/get tools by emphasizing PATCH semantics and the need to supply only changed fields.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance: supply numeric 'id' and only fields to change, omitting others leaves them unchanged. It also notes output format options. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other tools or warn when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate write behavior and destructiveness; description adds PATCH semantics, partial update behavior, and return format options (Markdown or JSON). No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short paragraphs plus return section, front-loaded with purpose and behavior, no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Explains PATCH behavior and return format, but lacks explanation of optional parameters (group, priority, member_id, member_type). With no output schema, a summary of expected fields would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 43%; description explains overall usage but does not describe parameters like group, priority, member_id, member_type beyond what schema provides. Fails to compensate for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('circuit_group_assignment'), and specifies PATCH semantics, distinguishing it from create, get, list, and delete siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear instructions to supply the numeric 'id' and only fields to change, with omitting fields leaving them unchanged. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds PATCH semantics and id requirement beyond annotations. However, annotations indicate destructiveHint: true, but description does not elaborate on potential damage, leaving a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise, well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage, returns. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers action, required id, optional fields, and return formats. Lacks error handling or prerequisite info, but sufficient for typical update use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, and description reiterates id and response_format but does not detail other parameters. Provides overall instruction but limited additional value per parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it updates an existing circuit_type in NetBox, specifies PATCH semantics, and distinguishes from sibling create/get/delete tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear guidance on supplying the numeric id and only fields to change; omitting a field leaves it unchanged. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining PATCH semantics (only provided fields changed) and response format options. Annotations already cover idempotent and destructive hints, and the description aligns with them, no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise paragraphs front-loading purpose and usage, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description explains return formats. However, with 8 parameters and low schema coverage, more detail on parameter meanings and constraints would be needed for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only id and response_format have descriptions). The description does not explain the other 6 parameters (name, type, label, etc.) beyond the update behavior. It compensates partially but insufficiently.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing console_port_template' with PATCH semantics, distinguishing it from sibling update tools for other NetBox objects. It specifies the verb and resource exactly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear instructions: supply numeric 'id' and only fields to change. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, the sibling tools are for different objects, so the context is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency (idempotentHint=true), and destructiveness (destructiveHint=true). The description adds the critical PATCH semantics detail that only provided fields change, which is consistent with annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, immediately explains the idempotent update behavior, and then succinctly notes the output format options. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core update behavior and output format, but with 10 parameters and no output schema, more detail would be helpful. For example, it does not explain the effect of 'mark_connected' or the format of 'custom_fields'. The description is adequate but not comprehensive for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 40% (4 of 10 parameters have descriptions). The description does not elaborate on the meaning of parameters like 'name', 'type', 'label', 'speed', 'description', or 'mark_connected'. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance for parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update an existing console_server_port'), the resource, and the semantics ('PATCH semantics — only provided fields are changed'). It unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create or delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides concrete usage steps: supply numeric 'id' and only fields to change. It also explains that omitted fields remain unchanged, which is helpful. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context and sibling tool names provide sufficient differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states 'PATCH semantics — only provided fields are changed', which aligns with annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true). It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the partial-update nature. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences, each adding value: purpose and semantics, usage instruction, and return format. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 11 parameters, nested objects (custom_fields), and no output schema, the description covers the core update semantics and response format but lacks details on other parameters. It is adequate for a basic understanding but incomplete for an agent to fully utilize all capabilities without relying on schema descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (36%), yet the description only mentions two parameters (id and response_format) beyond the schema. It does not describe the remaining 9 parameters (e.g., name, slug, color, tags) or their semantics, making it insufficient for an agent to understand parameter usage without relying solely on the schema names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an existing device_role in NetBox with PATCH semantics. The verb 'Update' and resource 'device_role' are specific, and the tool is easily distinguished from sibling tools like netbox_create_device_role or netbox_get_device_role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance: supply the numeric 'id' and only fields to change, omitting fields leaves them unchanged. It also explains the response_format parameter. However, it does not contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. create), which would improve clarity for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only nature. Description adds PATCH semantics (only provided fields change) and response format options, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise, two short paragraphs. Front-loads purpose and semantics, then usage, then return value. No superfluous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers core behavior (PATCH, required id, response format), but with 12 parameters and no output schema, more detail on parameter meanings and return structure would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% (descriptions for 4 of 12 parameters). Description only elaborates on 'id' and omitting fields. No additional detail for the many undocumented parameters, failing to compensate for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it updates an existing front_port in NetBox using PATCH semantics. Distinguishes from create (requires existing id), get, and delete operations among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to supply numeric 'id' and only fields to change, with PATCH behavior explained. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites but effectively differentiates from create.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description confirms PATCH semantics (idempotent, non-read-only) and explains the return format. Annotations already provide destructive and idempotent hints, so the description adds useful but non-essential context. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three clear sections: purpose, usage, and return values. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 16 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers basic usage but lacks detailed guidance on optional fields, nested objects, and typical use cases, making it only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 25% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate. It merely instructs to supply fields but does not explain the purpose or constraints of most parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('inventory_item') with PATCH semantics, distinguishing it from creation or retrieval tools among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly instructs to supply only the 'id' and fields to change, with omission leaving fields unchanged. It implies usage for updates but does not explicitly rule out creation or provide sibling comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include destructiveHint: true and idempotentHint: true, which are partially contradictory. Description mentions PATCH semantics (idempotent) but does not clarify destructive implications or provide additional behavioral context beyond what annotations and schema offer. No flagrant contradiction with annotations, but transparency is moderate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: purpose, usage pattern, return format. No extraneous text; essential information is front-loaded. Efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and partial annotations, the description adequately covers the update behavior, required id, and optional fields. Lacks explanation of nested objects like 'parent', but schema provides details. Reasonably complete for an update tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (4 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description only mentions 'id' and fields to change generically, adding no extra detail for undocumented parameters like 'name', 'parent', 'comments', 'description'. It meets the baseline for the coverage level but does not compensate for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing inventory_item_group' and specifies PATCH semantics, distinguishing it from create (new) and delete (removal) tools among siblings. The verb 'update' and resource are explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear instructions: supply numeric 'id' and only fields to change; omitted fields remain unchanged. This guides correct usage, though it does not explicitly address when not to use (e.g., preferring create for new objects), but the context of update vs. create is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds context on PATCH semantics and partial change behavior, but doesn't significantly extend beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three focused sentences with front-loaded purpose and minimal redundancy. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers the core update semantics and response format choices. For a 13-parameter tool without output schema, it is fairly complete but could detail more optional parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (31%), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'id' and 'response_format' explicitly, but doesn't explain other parameters like vrf, role, tags, etc. Marginal added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update an existing ip_range') and the resource, and explicitly mentions PATCH semantics, which distinguishes it from create, get, delete, and list tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit instructions to supply numeric 'id' and only fields to change, with clear omission behavior. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives but effectively guides partial updates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses PATCH semantics and return format options (markdown/json), adding context beyond annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint). Does not cover error handling or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise; three sentences cover purpose, usage, and return format. Front-loaded with critical info, no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately covers PATCH behavior and output options. Missing details on prerequisite (e.g., lookup id) or handling of nested fields like custom_fields, but schema partially fills gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
General instruction about partial updates, but no additional meaning for individual parameters beyond schema descriptions. With 57% schema coverage, baseline is 3 and description does not elevate it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Update an existing manufacturer in NetBox' with specific verb and resource. PATCH semantics are emphasized, but no explicit differentiation from other update tools (e.g., update_site) is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains to supply 'id' and only changed fields, with omission leaving them unchanged. Implicitly guides when to use, but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) and adds detail about PATCH semantics and output format (Markdown or JSON). It explains that omitted fields remain unchanged, supporting idempotency. No contradictions; the description adds value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at three sentences, with the most important information (PATCH semantics and id requirement) front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage, and return format. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the update behavior and return format but fails to explain the meaning of most parameters or any prerequisites. It is adequate but not thorough, leaving the agent to infer from context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 36% schema description coverage, the description does little to explain the 11 parameters beyond mentioning 'id'. It does not elaborate on fields like 'status', 'serial', or 'module_type', leaving a significant gap in understanding for an AI agent. The description adds minimal value to parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Update an existing module in NetBox (PATCH semantics)', clearly identifying the action (update) and the resource (module). It distinguishes from creation or deletion by specifying PATCH semantics, which implies partial updates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance: 'Supply the numeric 'id' and only the fields you want to change. Omitting a field leaves it unchanged.' This tells the agent when and how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'create_module' or 'delete_module', though the context makes that implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true; description adds PATCH semantics and return format options. No contradiction, but could mention side effects (e.g., if any fields are immutable).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three focused sentences: purpose, usage, return format. No redundant information, efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple update tool but lacks explanation of return value structure (e.g., Markdown summary vs JSON), handling of custom_fields, and missing prerequisite info (e.g., ID must exist).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (36%), and the description does not explain individual parameters (e.g., model, weight, comments). Only response_format is mentioned. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('module_type') and clarifies PATCH semantics, distinguishing it from create, get, and delete siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear guidance: supply only the numeric 'id' and fields to change; omitting a field leaves it unchanged. Implicitly contrasts with create, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clarifies the PATCH semantics beyond the annotations, explaining that only provided fields change. It also describes the return format options, which is behavioral context. However, it does not disclose any required permissions or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core behavior and output format, but lacks details on error cases, prerequisites (platform existence), and specifics on complex parameters like manufacturer and config_template. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, additional completeness would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 44% schema description coverage, many parameters lack definitions. The description does not elaborate on individual parameter meanings or constraints beyond stating to supply fields to change, which does not compensate for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an existing platform using PATCH semantics, specifying that only provided fields change. This differentiates it from create, get, and delete operations, which are present among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description instructs to provide only fields to change, implying partial updates. It implicitly differentiates from creation by requiring an existing id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for full replacement).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds PATCH semantics (partial update) and return format details beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three focused sentences: purpose, usage instruction, return format. No fluff, front-loaded with key info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for basic updates but lacks detail on parameter constraints, validation, and return value structure. With no output schema, more detail on response would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (36%). Description only elaborates on 'id' and 'response_format'. Other parameters (name, type, etc.) lack explanation, failing to compensate for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states action 'Update' and resource 'power_outlet in NetBox', specifying PATCH semantics. Distinguishes from sibling create/get tools by focusing on modification of existing object.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear instructions: supply numeric 'id' and only fields to change. Implicitly excludes alternatives like create (for new) and get (for read). No explicit 'when not to use' but context sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description reinforces PATCH semantics (only provided fields change) and specifies return formats (markdown or JSON). Annotations already indicate destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, usage instruction, return format. Front-loaded with key information, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers main aspects: PATCH behavior, required parameter, return options. Lacks explanation of error handling, prerequisites, or detailed parameter semantics for most fields, but the schema partially covers that. No output schema exists, so description compensates moderately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 44%, so baseline is 3. Description explains 'id' requirement and response_format parameter, but does not add meaning for the other 7 parameters beyond what the schema provides. Insufficient compensation for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool updates an existing power_panel using PATCH semantics. The verb ('Update') and resource ('power_panel') are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling create/delete tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides instructions on how to use (supply id and fields to change) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or delete. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which align with the update semantics. The description adds that it uses PATCH semantics (partial update) and returns Markdown or JSON, providing context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: purpose+semantics, usage instructions, and return format. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters and low schema coverage, the description covers the core usage (id and PATCH) and return options. However, it does not explain what a power_port_template is or the meaning of many fields, which may be needed for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 22%; only 'id' and 'response_format' have descriptions. The description adds that 'id' is numeric and that only provided fields change, but most other parameters lack semantic meaning in both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update', the resource 'power_port_template', and the semantics 'PATCH semantics — only provided fields are changed'. This sufficiently distinguishes it from sibling update tools for other NetBox objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description instructs to supply the numeric 'id' and only the fields to change, omitting fields leaves them unchanged. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and is destructive (destructiveHint=true) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds valuable context about PATCH semantics, which fields change, and the return format (Markdown or JSON), going beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at four sentences, with a clear front-loaded purpose statement. Every sentence adds information: PATCH semantics, how to use, and return format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and response format but omits details like parameter constraints (enums for protocol, parent_object_type), relationships, and error handling. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for a complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, meaning most parameters lack descriptions. The description only mentions the 'id' parameter and that only provided fields are changed, without detailing other parameters like 'tags', 'ports', 'custom_fields', or 'response_format'. It adds minimal value to parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an existing service with PATCH semantics. The verb 'Update' and resource 'service' are unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_create_service and netbox_get_service.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description tells users to supply the numeric 'id' and only fields to change, and notes that omitted fields remain unchanged. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. Description adds PATCH semantics detail but doesn't expand on auth, rate limits, or side effects beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Five sentences with front-loaded purpose and PATCH semantics. No fluff, every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Return format explained (markdown default or json). Nested custom_fields object mentioned but not detailed. Sufficient for the tool's complexity given annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%, description clarifies id must be numeric and explains response_format default. However, parameters like name, slug, parent, description lack schema descriptions and are not elaborated in description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Explicitly states 'Update an existing tenant_group in NetBox (PATCH semantics)' with clear verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like create_tenant_group and get_tenant_group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear guidance: 'Supply the numeric id and only the fields you want to change. Omitting a field leaves it unchanged.' Does not explicitly exclude other actions but is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive, idempotent, and read-only false. The description adds value by specifying PATCH semantics (partial update) and return format options. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and semantics. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal return info (Markdown or JSON) but lacks details on the object's context or structure. It is adequate but leaves gaps for complex fields like custom_fields and nested objects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (36%). The description does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond the schema's property names. It only mentions 'id' and the general PATCH behavior, failing to compensate for undocumented parameters like default_vcpus, default_memory, etc.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an existing virtual_machine_type with PATCH semantics. It explicitly names the resource and action, distinguishing it from create and get operations for the same object type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear instructions: supply numeric 'id' and only fields to change, omitting fields leaves them unchanged. It also mentions return format options. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create or delete, though sibling names imply different actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying PATCH semantics (only provided fields change), behavior when omitting fields, and return format options. Annotations already indicate destructive (destructiveHint=true) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true) behavior, and the description aligns without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences long, front-loading purpose and semantics before usage and return details. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an update tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, the description covers return format and update behavior but lacks details on error cases, prerequisites, or individual parameter meanings. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for complex use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 27% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the majority of undocumented parameters. While it explains the update pattern, it does not detail the meaning or usage of fields like vid, role, site, etc., leaving the agent with insufficient guidance for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Update an existing vlan in NetBox (PATCH semantics)', clearly identifying the action (update) and resource (vlan). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like netbox_create_vlan (create) and netbox_get_vlan (read).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises 'Supply the numeric id and only the fields you want to change' and notes that omitting a field leaves it unchanged, providing clear context for usage. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, aligning with creation. The description adds that it creates a new row, and includes a dry-run caution and return format. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a 'Returns' line. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a usage guideline (dry-run check). However, it omits important context such as required relationships (e.g., cluster type must exist) and does not detail the return structure beyond 'Markdown summary or JSON.' This is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not add any parameter information beyond what the input schema already provides. Schema coverage is 67% (high), so the baseline is 3. The description fails to clarify parameter usage or relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new cluster in NetBox' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like netbox_update_cluster and netbox_list_clusters by its focus on creation. The dry-run note adds further clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description instructs 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run,' which guides when to confirm with the user. It does not explicitly list alternatives (e.g., update or list), but the tool name and sibling list make this context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds behavioral context by stating 'This adds a new row' and recommending a dry-run check. No contradictions exist between description and annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: creation action, dry-run advice, and return format. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 12 parameters, no output schema, and nested custom_fields object, the description provides only basic context. It explains the return format and dry-run, but lacks guidance on complex parameters like tags, group, or custom_fields structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%, and the description does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond mentioning the response_format options. The schema already describes each parameter sufficiently. Minimal added value from description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new contact in NetBox,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that list, get, or update contacts by being the creation action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes an important usage guideline: 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run.' This advises caution before performing a write operation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other contact tools or specify when to use this vs. update.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes far beyond the annotations. It explains cascading deletes with concrete examples, states there is no undo, and emphasizes the need for user confirmation. This adds significant behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: first the purpose, then warnings, then return value. It is concise for the amount of information conveyed, though slightly lengthy due to cascading examples.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple deletion tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, behavior, return value, and usage guidelines. It leaves no critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the 'id' parameter well-documented. The description does not add extra semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable at baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a aggregate from NetBox by numeric id.' It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools, though the name itself is specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance: it warns that the operation is destructive and irreversible, and instructs to confirm the exact object and cascading effects with the user before calling. It does not mention alternative tools but gives clear context for when to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond annotations by detailing cascade effects (with concrete examples), irreversibility, the need for user confirmation, and the HTTP 204 response. It fully discloses behavioral traits without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the action, and efficiently structured into action, warnings, and response. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: action, destructive nature, cascade behavior, caution requirement, and expected response. It is fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the 'id' parameter fully (type integer, minimum 1, description). The description adds 'numeric' but that is redundant. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a cluster_group from NetBox by numeric id' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools by naming the exact resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from them beyond that.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides strong caution about destructiveness and irreversibility, advising user confirmation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get or update, nor does it exclude any usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds concrete behavioral details: the action is irreversible and cascades deletes. Examples of cascading are given, though not specifically for device types. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (four sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. The warnings are presented immediately after the purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the cascading examples could be slightly more targeted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete tool with a simple schema and no output schema, the description covers the necessary behavioral details, warning, and return type. It adequately supports an agent in understanding the operation, though explicit error handling (e.g., on non-existent id) is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no new semantic details beyond the schema's description, meeting the baseline for complete schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a device_type from NetBox by numeric id.', specifying the action, resource, and required identifier. The tool name and title reinforce this, and among many delete siblings, the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit warnings about destructiveness and irreversibility are provided, along with a directive to confirm with the user before calling. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., updating a device type instead of deleting it).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description expands on the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by detailing the cascading deletion behavior of NetBox, giving concrete examples of what can be removed along with the interface template. It also notes the HTTP 204 response on success. This adds meaningful behavioral insight beyond the annotation flags.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact (approx. 100 words) but well-structured: a one-line purpose, followed by a clear warning section. Every sentence contributes relevant information, though the warning could be slightly condensed. It is front-loaded with the essential action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input schema (one required integer parameter), no output schema, and annotations marking destructiveness, the description adequately covers the key points: what the tool does, how to use it (with confirmation), what to expect (cascading deletes, 204 response). It is complete enough for an agent to use safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters (only 'id'), and its description already states 'Numeric id of the interface_template to delete.' The tool description does not add additional context about the parameter, so it meets the baseline expectation but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('interface_template from NetBox'), using a specific verb and noun. It includes the identifier method ('by numeric id'), and the name and title match the purpose. Among siblings, many deletion tools exist, but the description unambiguously identifies this as the tool for interface templates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description emphasizes that the operation is destructive and irreversible, and includes explicit instructions to confirm the exact object and its cascading effects with the user before calling. While it does not explicitly list when to use alternatives (e.g., updating instead of deleting), the strong warning and mention of cascading deletes provide practical guidance for safe usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes beyond destructiveHint annotation by detailing NetBox's cascade deletion behavior with concrete examples, warning of no undo, and noting HTTP 204 response.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded purpose, then warnings; concise overall. Cascade examples add length but are valuable for context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers behavior, prerequisites (user confirmation), and response format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (id) with schema coverage 100%; description does not add additional meaning beyond what schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb (delete) and resource (ip_address) with the required id parameter. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other delete tools among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides strong guidance by emphasizing destructive and irreversible nature, warning about cascading deletes, and instructing to confirm with user. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: cascade behavior across many object types, irreversibility, and HTTP 204 response. This provides behavioral insight beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loading purpose and danger. It includes illustrative examples but does not waste words. Could be slightly tighter, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description mentions the HTTP 204 response. It covers the key deletion behavior and warnings. Lacks error handling or permissions info, but sufficient for a delete tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', with a clear description. The description adds 'by numeric id', which reinforces but does not add new information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a role from NetBox by numeric id', specifying the verb (delete), resource (role), and method. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools by naming the specific resource type 'role'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns about destructiveness, irreversibility, and cascading deletes, instructing the agent to confirm with the user before calling. It implies when to use (when deletion is intended and understood) but does not explicitly name alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that output can be Markdown or JSON, but omits error handling or behavior when id is not found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with three short sentences, front-loading the purpose and usage, and no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with excellent annotations and full schema coverage, the description adequately covers purpose, when to use, and output format, making it complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds little beyond the schema. It reiterates the id parameter and provides a minor usage hint for response_format, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves a single cluster by numeric id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like netbox_list_clusters (multiple) and create/update/delete operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises using this after netbox_list_clusters or when the id is already known, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, such as when the id is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds return format details (Markdown vs JSON) and mentions nested references, which provides additional behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with clear front-loading: purpose, usage context, return format. Every sentence is essential and not wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, but the description explains the two return formats. Annotations are rich. For a simple get operation, the description covers all necessary operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the two parameters. The phrase 'by numeric id' echoes the schema description but does not enhance it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single fhrp_group from NetBox by numeric id,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like netbox_list_fhrp_groups and netbox_create_fhrp_group through the usage guideline.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Use after netbox_list_fhrp_groups has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This clarifies when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when-not-to, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds output format options (Markdown/JSON) and mentions nested references, but doesn't significantly extend behavioral disclosure beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, then usage guidance, then output description. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a simple get-by-id tool with two parameters and annotations. Output format is explained, and no output schema is needed given the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal new meaning; it contextualizes the id parameter's origin and explains when to use each response format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Get a single provider from NetBox by numeric id.' Distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_list_providers (list) and create/update/delete tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises 'Use after netbox_list_providers has located the object, or when you already have the id.' Provides clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds return format details but does not provide additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, usage hint, and return format. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and return format adequately. No output schema needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers both parameters with 100% description coverage. The main description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action (Get), the resource (tenant_group), and the method (by numeric id). Distinguishes from siblings by referencing netbox_list_tenant_groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to use after listing or when id is known. Parameter response_format description advises using 'json' for chaining calls, providing clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by detailing pagination (limit, offset, has_more, next_offset, auto-truncation) and return format options. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with sections for common patterns, pagination, and filters. It front-loads the main purpose. Some filter entries are empty, making it slightly longer than necessary, but overall clear and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 18 parameters and no output schema, the description covers pagination, response format, and most filter parameters. Missing descriptions for a few parameters are partially compensated by schema enums. It explains common patterns and return options well.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 61%, so the description must add context. It lists resource-specific filters but leaves some (family, status, role, etc.) with empty descriptions. However, schema enums cover most of these. The description adds value for pagination and common patterns. Overall adequate but not thorough.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List individual IP addresses from NetBox', a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from netbox_get_ip_address by advising to use that tool when an ID is known. The common patterns section further clarifies usage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance (discovery, narrow scan) and when-not (lookup by id, recommending netbox_get_ip_address). It does not cover alternatives like netbox_list_prefixes, but the cross-referencing is sufficient for the primary sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutability and potential destructiveness. The description adds useful context by clarifying PATCH semantics and specifying return formats (Markdown summary or JSON). No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three short paragraphs: purpose, usage, and output. Every sentence adds value and is well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Overall complete for an update operation: explains PATCH semantics, required 'id', optional fields, and output format. Lacks error handling or prerequisites, but covers essential aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%, meaning 4 of 8 parameters lack descriptions. The description only mentions the 'id' parameter explicitly, leaving missing schema descriptions (e.g., name, slug) unaddressed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing cluster_group in NetBox (PATCH semantics — only provided fields are changed).' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling update tools like netbox_update_cluster or netbox_update_site.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly instructs to supply the numeric 'id' and only the fields to change, emphasizing PATCH semantics. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the uniqueness of the resource makes usage clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide destructive and read-only hints. Description adds PATCH semantics, non-destructive partial updates, and return format details. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three crisp sentences: purpose, usage instruction, return description. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers operation semantics and return format, but lacks explanations for many parameters (role, contact, priority, etc.) and custom_fields usage. Adequate for a simple update but not fully complete given parameter count.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 44%. Description adds PATCH behavior but does not explain individual parameter meanings beyond what schema provides. Adequate but not compensatory for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Update an existing contact_assignment in NetBox (PATCH semantics)'. The verb 'update' and resource are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling create_ and delete_ tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains when to use (to update an existing assignment) and provides guidance: supply id and only fields to change. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear given siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey key traits (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). The description adds minimal extra context by confirming PATCH semantics and return format, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (3-4 lines), front-loaded with the core purpose and PATCH semantics, followed by essential usage instructions and return format details. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (Markdown summary or JSON) and the usage pattern. For a simple update tool with clear annotations, this is sufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 33% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by clarifying that 'id' is required and explaining the 'response_format' parameter's purpose. However, it does not add meaning to other parameters (name, label, description, device_type) beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('device_bay_template'), and specifies PATCH semantics with only provided fields changed, distinguishing it from create/get/delete siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear instructions: supply numeric 'id' and only fields to change, omitting leaves unchanged. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use (e.g., for creation or deletion) and does not mention alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses PATCH semantics (only provided fields changed) and output format, adding context beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: one sentence for purpose, one for usage, then return formats. Front-loaded and no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers key aspects (update semantics, required id, optional fields, output options) but lacks details on return structure and does not mention prerequisites like object existence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%, and the description does not describe undocumented parameters (group, priority, interface_id, interface_type), failing to compensate for missing schema details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update', the resource 'fhrp_group_assignment', and specifies PATCH semantics, distinguishing it from create/delete siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear instructions on how to use (supply id and fields to change) and output format options, but does not explicitly exclude use cases or compare with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses PATCH semantics and response format (Markdown or JSON), going beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds detail on the partial update behavior. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the annotations cover the destructive nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of three sentences. The first sentence states the action and semantics, the second gives usage instruction, and the third describes the return format. No unnecessary information, well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 11 parameters and no output schema, the description could be more detailed. It explains the update behavior and response format but does not describe the fields' meanings or relationships (e.g., device_type, module_type). However, the sibling tools list provides context for the object type, and the annotations cover safety. The description is minimally adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has low description coverage (18%), so the description bears more responsibility. It adds context for the 'id' and 'response_format' parameters but does not explain the meaning of other fields like 'type', 'color', or 'rear_port'. The generic guidance on 'only provide fields to change' is helpful but insufficient to fully compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates a front_port_template in NetBox using PATCH semantics. It explicitly mentions the resource and the verb, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, get, list, and delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidelines: supply the numeric 'id' and only the fields to change. It explains that omitted fields remain unchanged, which aids correct usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with when to use create or delete instead, though the sibling context makes this implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces these by stating 'PATCH semantics' and 'only provided fields are changed'. Adds return format details (markdown vs JSON) beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three compact sentences with no redundancy: purpose, usage pattern, and return format. Each sentence adds essential value. Front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers core behavior (PATCH), idempotency, return format. For a 9-parameter update tool, it's mostly complete. Could mention error conditions (e.g., missing id) but not critical. No output schema given but return format explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 44%, with 5 parameters (name, account, comments, provider, description) lacking descriptions. The description only addresses id via 'Supply the numeric id' and doesn't compensate for the other undocumented parameters. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but ambiguous (e.g., 'account' could be a slug or identifier).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Update an existing provider_account in NetBox (PATCH semantics — only provided fields are changed)'. The tool name, title, and description align to indicate the exact action. Differentiates from sibling create/delete/get tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Supply the numeric id and only the fields you want to change. Omitting a field leaves it unchanged.' While it could explicitly contrast with create/delete tools, the guidance is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context beyond annotations by explicitly stating PATCH semantics and return format options. Annotations already indicated idempotent and destructive hints, so the description complements them well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three sentences that front-load purpose, usage, and output. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: PATCH semantics, required id, and return format. Lacks explicit guidance on custom_fields or chaining, but remains adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 40% schema description coverage, the description provides minimal parameter guidance beyond 'id'. It does not elaborate on most parameters (date, name, status, etc.), leaving a gap in understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing purchase in NetBox' using PATCH semantics. It specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from create/delete tools by focusing on update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It instructs to supply the numeric 'id' and only fields to change, with the note that omitted fields remain unchanged. This provides clear context for use, though it does not explicitly exclude creation or deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. Description adds PATCH semantics and return format options, providing useful context beyond annotations without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences plus a return description. No fluff, front-loaded with core semantics (PATCH), and every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers essential update behavior (PATCH), required param (id), and return format options. Lacks explanation of what route_target is or what fields are available for update beyond schema, but is sufficient given openWorldHint and sibling context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (4 of 8 params have descriptions). The description does not add missing parameter meanings (e.g., 'tenant', 'comments'), leaving agents reliant on schema, which is only partially covered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('Update') and specific resource ('route_target') in the first sentence. Distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the specific object type, though all update tools are similarly named for their respective resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states to supply numeric 'id' and only fields to change, with PATCH semantics. Does not mention when not to use (e.g., for creation) or alternatives, but the guidance is clear for its intended use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains PATCH semantics (only provided fields changed), complementing annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint). No contradictions, but lacks details on authorization or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with key info. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers return format with chaining tip and PATCH behavior. No output schema, but description is adequate for an update tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 40% (only id and response_format have descriptions). The description does not elaborate on the three undocumented parameters (name, comments, description), failing to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing vlan_translation_policy' with 'PATCH semantics', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from create/get/delete siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Instructions to supply numeric 'id' and only fields to change are clear. However, no explicit when-not or alternative tools (e.g., create) are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which align with the PATCH semantics described. The description adds the return format options (markdown or json), which is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loading the core purpose and PATCH semantics, then covering input guidance and return formats. Every sentence adds value with no extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description adequately covers update behavior and response options. However, it lacks mention of error handling or prerequisites (e.g., existence of the rule), but the annotations compensate for idempotency and destructiveness. Overall sufficient for a partial update tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'id' and 'response_format' have descriptions). The description does not elaborate on the other parameters (policy, local_vid, remote_vid, description) beyond stating they can be changed. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds minimal value over the schema, failing to compensate for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Update an existing vlan_translation_rule in NetBox (PATCH semantics — only provided fields are changed).' It clearly identifies the verb (update), resource (vlan_translation_rule), and the PATCH approach, distinguishing it from create, delete, get, and list sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description instructs to 'Supply the numeric id and only the fields you want to change. Omitting a field leaves it unchanged.' This provides clear context for usage, but does not explicitly mention when it should not be used or point to alternative tools like create or delete, though the PATCH semantics imply it's for partial updates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open world. The description adds that it creates a new row and cautions about dry-run, and specifies return format. This provides useful context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is four sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. It is efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains return formats. It covers creation, dry-run advisory, and output. However, it does not explain the concept of a circuit_type or its fields beyond schema descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 71%, with descriptions in the schema for 5 of 7 parameters. The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it adds no additional semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new circuit_type in NetBox', which specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get, update, list, and delete by explicitly mentioning creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run,' giving important usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context beyond annotations: mentions 'adds a new row' (non-destructive write) and specifies output format options (markdown/json). Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences plus a return bullet. Each sentence serves a purpose, and the key action and caution are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers output format and dry-run caution. It could mention parameter mappings (e.g., device_id to API field), but overall it's sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (75%), so baseline is 3. The description does not add detail on individual parameters beyond the schema, but the output format note relates to response_format. No contradiction or extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'device_bay' in NetBox, distinguishing it from sibling tools like netbox_get_device_bay, netbox_update_device_bay, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises asking before calling for a dry-run, providing behavioral guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., update vs create), but the purpose makes usage clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'This adds a new row to NetBox' confirming a write operation, and the dry-run advice adds behavioral context. However, no further details on side effects, authentication, or rate limits are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences plus a returns section. The purpose is front-loaded, the cautionary note is placed second, and the return format is clearly explained without extra fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, a usage caution, and return format options. It does not detail required parameters or relationships (e.g., site id), but given the schema descriptions cover those, this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 75%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the response_format parameter's usage: 'Use ''json'' when chaining follow-up tool calls.' This goes beyond the schema's enum listing and provides practical guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('a new location in NetBox'), and the title 'Create Location' is consistent. It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_list_locations, netbox_get_location, etc. by implying creation as the core action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides a usage guideline: 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run.' This shows appropriate caution. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but the purpose is clear enough to select this tool when creating a location.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), not destructive (destructiveHint=false), and not idempotent (idempotentHint=false). The description adds transparency by advising a dry-run check and specifying the return format (markdown default, JSON if requested). This improves behavioral understanding beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two short paragraphs with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds the dry-run instruction, and the last paragraph describes the return format. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the schema covers most parameters, the description adds the critical dry-run guidance and return format notes. It does not explain typical usage or prerequisites, but for a creation tool, the context is sufficient. Without an output schema, the description compensates by describing the return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not provide additional meaning beyond the existing schema descriptions for parameters like name, slug, tags, description, custom_fields, and response_format. The return format note is useful but mentioned only in the context of output, not parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Title 'Create Manufacturer' and description 'Create a new manufacturer in NetBox' clearly state the action and resource. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like netbox_list_manufacturers, netbox_get_manufacturer, netbox_update_manufacturer, and netbox_delete_manufacturer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes an explicit usage guideline: 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run.' This provides important context for when to use the tool (with user confirmation). However, it does not provide explicit comparisons to sibling tools like update or delete, but the purpose is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it adds a new row in NetBox and describes the return format (Markdown or JSON). This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), but doesn't detail error cases or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two short paragraphs. It front-loads the purpose and then adds the dry-run advice and return info. No redundant sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient context by explaining the return format and the dry-run recommendation. It doesn't cover all aspects of the tool (e.g., required fields are in schema), but it is complete enough for a CRUD tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has high coverage (78%) with descriptions for most parameters. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates a new purchase in NetBox, using specific verbs and the resource name. It distinguishes from sibling create tools for other resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises to ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run, which is a clear usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though the context of many siblings implies this is for purchases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature (destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by mentioning the dry-run caution and the return format options (Markdown/JSON), which are not covered by annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is brief and front-loaded: purpose, then additional context (dry-run, return format). No superfluous words; each sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create tool with no output schema, the description mentions return format. It includes a dry-run caution, but does not elaborate on side effects or prerequisites. Still adequate given the high schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (86%), so the schema already explains most parameters. The description does not add further meaning to any parameter; baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Create a new rir in NetBox' with a specific verb and resource. The tool is distinct from siblings like netbox_get_rir (read), netbox_update_rir (update), and netbox_delete_rir (delete).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Includes a guideline to 'Ask before calling if the user wanted a dry-run,' which provides cautionary context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus alternatives like update or delete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context beyond annotations: mentions that it adds a new row, cautions about dry-run, and describes the return format (markdown/json). No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: two sentences plus a 'Returns' section. Every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create tool with no output schema, the description explains the return format and the need for caution (dry-run). Missing details on permissions or side effects, but sufficient for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 73%, so the schema already provides parameter details. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new vlan_group in NetBox'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like netbox_get_vlan_group, netbox_update_vlan_group, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to ask before calling and check if the user wants a dry-run, providing guidance on responsible use. Does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the sibling set clearly separates create from read/update/delete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing NetBox's cascade deletion behavior and the HTTP 204 response. This adds critical context for safe usage, fully disclosing irreversible consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loads the purpose, and uses formatting for emphasis. Every sentence serves a clear purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, parameters, destructive behavior, return value, and user confirmation. While the cascade explanation is generic, it is sufficiently clear for this simple tool. Slightly more specific cascade details for device_role would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, the description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The 'by numeric id' phrase mirrors the schema description, offering no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a device_role from NetBox by numeric id', providing a specific verb and resource. The tool's name and title further reinforce this, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description warns about the destructive and irreversible nature, advising confirmation with the user. However, it does not explicitly specify when to use versus alternatives like updating instead of deleting, which would improve guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining cascading deletes with examples and the HTTP 204 response on success. This helps the agent understand the full impact of the operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three short paragraphs: first states the core action, second details destructive behavior and cascading, third notes the return value. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, destructive nature, cascading effects, and success response. It could mention potential error responses but is sufficient for the agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the single required 'id' parameter (integer, minimum 1) with a description. The description only mentions 'by numeric id' which is already covered. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no new meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete' and the specific resource 'power_port_template' from NetBox, identified by numeric id. This directly defines the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other tools that manage different objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns that the operation is destructive, irreversible, and that NetBox cascades deletes, advising to confirm the exact object and its dependencies with the user. While it does not list specific alternatives or when not to use, the context of cascading gives clear guidance for cautious use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true. The description adds significant value by explaining NetBox cascade deletes with concrete examples and stressing irreversibility, going well beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three short paragraphs. Every sentence adds value: purpose, destructive warning, cascade explanation, no undo, confirmation advice, and return expectation. No redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return (HTTP 204 No Content), warns about cascading deletes, and advises user confirmation. It could mention that the object must exist, but this is implicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'id' parameter. The description only repeats 'by numeric id' without adding further semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Delete a rack_type from NetBox by numeric id.' It specifies the resource, verb, and method, distinguishing it from sibling delete tools that target other objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It emphasizes the destructive and irreversible nature and advises confirming with the user, which indirectly guides usage, but lacks specific conditions or sibling comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond annotations by explicitly stating destructiveness, irreversibility, cascade behaviors with examples, and HTTP 204 response. Annotations already set destructiveHint:true, but description adds critical context. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is front-loaded with the main action, followed by warnings and response. It is efficient but includes multiple example cascade behaviors which, while informative, slightly reduce conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description provides comprehensive context: cascade effects, no undo, need for user confirmation, and response format. No output schema needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter (id) has 100% schema coverage with a clear description. The tool description only adds 'numeric id' which is redundant with the schema, so minimal added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and resource (service_template) with a specific identifier (numeric id). It is distinct from sibling tools that delete other objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or specify when to use it over other delete tools. However, it provides strong warnings and context for usage (destructive, irreversible, confirm with user). No explicit 'when to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds return format (markdown/json with nested references), which is useful but not extensive beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences; purpose is front-loaded, usage and return info follow. No extraneous text, each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id tool, the description covers usage and return format. No output schema exists, so description compensates by explaining outputs. Could mention id requirement or positive integer, but schema already covers that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds context: 'by numeric id' clarifies the id parameter, and the Returns section explains the response_format enum values beyond schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single asset from NetBox by numeric id', specifying a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like netbox_list_assets and other get tools for different entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance: use after netbox_list_assets or when you already have the id. It implicitly distinguishes from list operations. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the return formats (Markdown or JSON) and that JSON includes nested references. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences and a returns line. It is front-loaded with the purpose and adds no unnecessary words. Every sentence is informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with full annotations and complete parameter schema, the description is mostly complete. It mentions the output format and content. However, it does not cover potential error scenarios or provide guidance beyond the immediate use case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters, thus baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'cable', and specifies it retrieves a single cable by numeric id. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like netbox_list_cables (which lists multiple) and create/update tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells when to use the tool: after netbox_list_cables has located the object or when the id is already known. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly list when not to use it or alternatives, which is acceptable for a simple retrieval tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that returns are in markdown or JSON with nested references, which is useful but not extensive beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences plus a returns section, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, usage context, and return formats. It lacks mention of error handling or pagination, but that is acceptable for a get-by-id operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the response_format parameter's use cases (markdown for readability, json for chaining) and mentions 'by numeric id' for the id parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the action 'Get' and the resource 'a single delivery from NetBox by numeric id'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_list_deliveries (list) and netbox_create_delivery (create).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It instructs to use after netbox_list_deliveries has located the object or when already having the id, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds return format details (Markdown default or JSON with nested references), which is valuable beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value (usage guidance, return format). No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description explains the return format (Markdown or JSON with nested references). It also clarifies the ID requirement. Annotations cover safety. Slightly incomplete without an explicit mention of the single-object nature, but name and first sentence suffice.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters; the description adds little beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., numeric ID, format options). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves a single interface template by numeric ID, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing netbox_list_interface_templates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says to use after listing or when ID is known, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention other alternatives beyond the list tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by stating the return format (Markdown or JSON with nested references), which is not explicitly in annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage context, third describes return format. No extraneous information; each sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id tool with no output schema, the description adequately describes what is returned (full object with nested references) and when to use it. It is complete enough for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both id and response_format. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, but it reinforces the default format. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single inventory_item_group from NetBox by numeric id.' It specifies the action (get) and resource (inventory_item_group). Sibling tools include list, create, update, delete, so this purpose is well-distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises to use after netbox_list_inventory_item_groups has located the object or when the id is already known. This provides context on when to invoke the tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other operations like update.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the tool returns Markdown by default or JSON with nested references, which enhances transparency about output format. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences, no redundant information, and is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value. Efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get tool with no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, usage, and return format. It could optionally mention idempotency but annotations cover that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description only mentions 'numeric id' without adding new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not add significant parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single inventory_item_template from NetBox by numeric id.' This specifies the verb (Get), the resource (inventory_item_template), and the method (by id). It distinguishes from list tools and other get tools among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises to use after netbox_list_inventory_item_templates has located the object or when the id is already known, providing clear usage context. It could be improved by also stating when not to use (e.g., if you need to search by other criteria), but the guidance is helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating it returns Markdown or JSON with nested references, which is behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of three concise sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and return format. No wasted words; every sentence is necessary and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, how to use it, and what it returns. It lacks explicit mention of error handling (e.g., missing ID), but this is minor for a straightforward getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description repeats the return format info but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single ip_range from NetBox by numeric id,' specifying the verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like netbox_list_ip_ranges (for listing) and netbox_create_ip_range (for creation) by indicating it retrieves a single object by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use after netbox_list_ip_ranges has located the object, or when you already have the id,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for creation or updates), but the sibling tool list implies alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds return format (Markdown or JSON) but no additional behavioral traits like rate limits or auth needs. Adequate but not extra.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: 5 sentences, each serving a purpose. Front-loaded with primary action, then usage, then return format. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and full schema coverage, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and parameter details. No output schema, but return format explained. Minor gap: could mention what the response contains beyond format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds context: id is numeric, response_format has guidance to use 'json' for chaining follow-up tool calls, adding value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Get a single power_feed' and resource 'power_feed' with specific qualifier 'by numeric id'. Distinguishes from the sibling list tool by stating it is used after listing or when id is known.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: after netbox_list_power_feeds has located the object, or when you already have the id. Provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds return format details (markdown vs. JSON with nested references) but no additional behavioral traits beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get tool with good annotations and clear siblings, the description covers purpose, usage, and return format. Missing error handling details but otherwise complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all parameters (100% coverage). Description adds strategic guidance for response_format ('Use json when chaining follow-up tool calls'), which adds value beyond schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single rack_type from NetBox by numeric id.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling netbox_list_rack_types and netbox_create_rack_type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to use after netbox_list_rack_types has located the object or when the id is already known, providing clear workflow context. Does not include when-not-to-use but is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return format (Markdown or JSON) and that it includes nested references, which helps the agent anticipate the output structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at 4 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. No waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. The annotations cover safety and idempotency. Minor gap: it doesn't describe error cases or id validity, but that's acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters having descriptions. The description reiterates 'by numeric id' for the id parameter and mentions response_format options, but adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single role from NetBox by numeric id,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_list_roles, netbox_create_role, etc., by focusing on a single object retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly guides the agent to use this tool 'after netbox_list_roles has located the object, or when you already have the id,' providing clear context for when to invoke it. It mentions the list tool as a prerequisite but does not explicitly exclude other tools like update_role.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety traits; description adds useful information about return format (Markdown/JSON) and that it returns full object with nested references, which is beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise, front-loaded with main action, followed by usage guidance and return description. No superfluous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with no output schema, description adequately covers return content and prerequisite, though could explicitly mention response_format parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, briefly mentioning 'numeric id' and output options.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single site_group from NetBox by numeric id', specifying a unique verb and resource, and distinguishes from list, create, update, and delete siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly mentions use after netbox_list_site_groups or when id is known, but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare safe operations; description adds that output includes Markdown or JSON with full NetBox object and nested references, providing useful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately describes return formats (Markdown/JSON) and mentions nested references, compensating for lack of output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond stating 'numeric id' which matches schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Get a single tenant from NetBox by numeric id.' Distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_list_tenants by specifying it retrieves a single object.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to use after netbox_list_tenants or when id is known, giving clear when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. Description adds details on return formats (Markdown/JSON) and that it includes nested references, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise (three sentences), front-loads purpose, then provides usage guidance and return details. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description adequately covers return format and content (nested references). Lacks error handling mention, but overall sufficient for a read-only retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema: 'by numeric id' and mentions output formats, but parameters are well-documented in schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single virtual_circuit from NetBox by numeric id', using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling list tool by mentioning usage after netbox_list_virtual_circuits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use this tool: after netbox_list_virtual_circuits or when id is known. Provides clear context though does not mention explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by stating return formats (Markdown or JSON) and mentioning 'nested references'. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and return format. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description explains return options and nested references. It is fairly complete for a get tool with rich annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats that id is numeric.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get a single vlan_translation_policy from NetBox by numeric id.' This uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like netbox_list_vlan_translation_policies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit context: 'Use after netbox_list_vlan_translation_policies has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This guides the AI on when to invoke this tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world. Description adds pagination details (limit, offset, has_more, next_offset), auto-truncation, and output format options. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections (resource-specific, universal, pagination, patterns). Front-loaded purpose. No redundant sentences; every part adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all 11 parameters, pagination behavior, output format, and usage patterns. Very complete for a listing tool with no output schema, though lacks mention of sorting or performance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 73%, so description adds value by explaining q fuzzy search, tag AND semantics, date formats, and rir_id example. However, some parameters (prefix, family, tenant_id) have blank descriptions both in schema and description, missing full compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists aggregate prefixes from RIRs, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from netbox_get_aggregate by advising to use that for lookup by id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit patterns: discovery, lookup by id, and narrow scan. Includes pagination and format options. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but the alternatives are clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds pagination behavior (limit/offset, auto-truncation), response format options, and that responses include 'has_more' and 'next_offset'. Adds value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with sections for common patterns, pagination, filters, and return type. Front-loaded with main purpose. Slightly verbose in listing filters but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers discovery, lookup, narrow scanning, pagination details, auto-truncation, and response format. No output schema exists, so return description suffices. Complete for a list operation with 10 parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 70%; description groups filters into resource-specific and universal, adds context for 'q' (fuzzy text search) and explains pagination params. However, it does not add detail to parameters without schema descriptions (device_type_id, name, name__ic).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'List inventory item templates from NetBox.' and distinguishes from sibling tool netbox_get_inventory_item_template by advising to use that for lookup by id. Purpose is specific and resource-focused.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides common patterns: discovery with no filters, lookup by id (redirect), and narrow scan with filters. Mentions pagination and filtering but does not explicitly exclude other list tools; however, the resource specificity makes context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains pagination auto-truncation due to character limits, the response format (Markdown default, JSON option), and the shape of the JSON response (total, count, offset, limit, items, has_more, next_offset). This contextualizes the tool's behavior adequately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear headings (common patterns, pagination, resource-specific filters, universal filters, returns). Information is front-loaded with the core action and then details. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, pagination, various filters, response format choice), the description is nearly complete. It explains pagination mechanics, filter categories, and return format. It covers the response shape even without an output schema. Minor gaps: the resource-specific filters (device_id, module_bay_id, status) lack descriptions, and the description does not mention the maximum limit value explicitly (though it appears in the schema). Overall, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 70% (7 of 10 parameters have descriptions). The description summarizes parameter usage (e.g., pagination, filters) and organizes them into resource-specific and universal categories, which adds some value. However, for parameters like device_id, module_bay_id, and status, the description only lists them without additional meaning beyond the schema's placeholder descriptions. Overall, the description complements the schema but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond what is already present.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists modules from NetBox with pagination and filtering. It distinguishes itself from netbox_get_module for lookup by id, and provides common patterns (discovery, narrow scan). The verb 'list' and resource 'modules' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs netbox_get_module (for id lookup). It gives common patterns like discovery and narrow scan with filters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare to other list tools in the sibling set, though the sibling set includes many list tools for different resources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: pagination auto-truncation and the need to continue with next_offset. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections (purpose, patterns, pagination, filters, returns). It is fairly concise given the complexity, but some lines could be slightly trimmed without loss.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description explains the response shape (JSON fields) and pagination mechanics. However, it does not specify what fields are in each service item, which may require the agent to rely on external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 78%, and the description adds value by grouping filters (resource-specific vs universal) and explaining the response_format parameter (use json for chaining). However, name and protocol lack description in schema and are only listed without further details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists L4 services on devices/VMs from NetBox. It distinguishes from netbox_get_service by advising to use that tool when an ID is known. The verb 'List' is specific to the resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Common patterns cover discovery, lookup by id (with alternative tool), and narrow scan, providing guidance on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to other listing tools beyond get_service.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose destructive and idempotent nature; description adds PATCH semantics and return format (Markdown/JSON). No contradiction, adds value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, efficient and free of fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, usage, and output format. Lacks mention of error handling or prerequisites like object existence, but given annotations and simple update operation, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%; parameters without descriptions (name, slug, tenant, description) are not elaborated in the tool description. The description relies on the schema and does not compensate for undocumented fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Update an existing circuit_group' with explicit mention of PATCH semantics, distinguishing from create. The verb and resource are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear instruction to supply numeric 'id' and only desired fields, and explains omission leaves field unchanged. However, does not explicitly compare to create tool for when the object doesn't exist, which is a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains PATCH semantics, which aligns with annotations: readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true (PATCH is idempotent). The destructiveHint=true is noted but update is not typically destructive; however, the description does not contradict annotations. The description adds clarity by stating only provided fields change, which is not evident from annotations alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with no wasted sentences. It front-loads the purpose and then provides clear usage instructions and return format details. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, 1 required, nested objects, and no output schema, the description explains the output format (Markdown or JSON) and the PATCH behavior well. It lacks details on error handling or permission requirements, but with the schema and annotations, it is largely complete for an update operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, and the description does not add detailed explanations for parameters (e.g., name, slug, comments) beyond what the schema provides. It adds context about output format and partial updates, but the missing parameter descriptions are not compensated. Baseline at 3 is appropriate as the description offers some added value but not full compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing cluster_type in NetBox' with specific verb and resource. It also mentions 'PATCH semantics — only provided fields are changed', which distinguishes it from create or delete operations among sibling tools like netbox_create_cluster_type or netbox_delete_cluster_type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance: 'Supply the numeric id and only the fields you want to change. Omitting a field leaves it unchanged.' This tells the agent how to use the tool correctly. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., when to use create instead).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate mutation. It adds value by explaining PATCH semantics and return format behavior. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose/semantics, usage guidance, and return format. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and contains no redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, semantics, usage, and return format. It lacks domain context (e.g., what a console_server_port_template is, relationships to other objects) but is sufficient for an agent that understands NetBox context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (25%). The description adds meaning for the 'id' and 'response_format' parameters, but does not provide additional context for other parameters (e.g., name, type, device_type) beyond basic schema constraints. It partially compensates but could be richer.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('update an existing console_server_port_template') and the semantics ('PATCH semantics — only provided fields are changed'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, list, and delete for the same resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit guidance: 'Supply the numeric id and only the fields you want to change. Omitting a field leaves it unchanged.' It also mentions return format options. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparisons to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds PATCH semantics, which aligns with the annotations. The description also explains the return format. No contradictions are present, and the description adds useful context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences and a bullet about returns. It is well-structured with the key purpose and semantics front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema) and low schema coverage, the description adequately covers the update semantics and return format. It could mention how to obtain the 'id', but overall it is fairly complete for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (31%), and the description does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond stating that only provided fields are changed. While the schema describes some parameters, the description fails to add significant meaning for the majority of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'contact', and explicitly mentions PATCH semantics, differentiating it from create/get/delete tools among siblings. It specifies that only provided fields are changed, leaving omitted fields unchanged.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description instructs the agent to supply the numeric 'id' and only the fields to change, and clarifies that omitting a field leaves it unchanged. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with related tools like netbox_update_contact_assignment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains PATCH semantics, adding value beyond annotations which already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true. It informs the agent that only provided fields change, which is useful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is four sentences long, front-loaded with purpose and key usage instructions. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a seven-parameter update tool without an output schema, the description covers the update semantics and return format options. It lacks details on error handling or side effects, but is sufficiently complete for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 57% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for 'id' and 'response_format' but does not elaborate on 'name', 'slug', or 'description'. It implies these are optional, but the schema itself lacks descriptions for some parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing contact_role in NetBox (PATCH semantics — only provided fields are changed).' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like create or delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs to supply the numeric 'id' and only the fields to change, and notes that omitting a field leaves it unchanged. This provides clear usage context, though it does not mention when not to use the tool or compare to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description reinforces this by stating 'PATCH semantics — only provided fields are changed' and describing the return format. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the action and method. Every sentence serves a clear purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential operation, usage pattern, and output options. It does not detail every field or nested object, but the schema provides enough for an agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 40% schema description coverage, the description compensates slightly by explaining PATCH semantics and the response_format parameter. However, it does not add meaning beyond the schema for most parameters (date, name, comments, etc.), missing an opportunity to clarify usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing delivery in NetBox (PATCH semantics)', specifying the verb (update) and resource (delivery). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, get, list, and delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains PATCH semantics and advises to supply only the id and fields to change, with an explicit statement that omitting a field leaves it unchanged. However, it does not explicitly contrast with create or delete tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes PATCH semantics and outcome of omitted fields. Annotations already convey idempotent and destructive hints; description adds context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise two-sentence description plus returns line. Front-loaded with verb and resource, no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers essential behavior, return format, and response_format parameter. Lacks error handling details but sufficient for standard use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%; description adds minimal parameter detail beyond mentioning 'id' and custom_fields. Does not individually describe all fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Update an existing device_bay' with PATCH semantics, distinguishing from create/get/list/delete sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly requires numeric 'id' and instructs to provide only fields to change. Does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description aligns by stating PATCH semantics and that only provided fields are changed. It adds context about return format options, which annotations do not cover.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences plus a return section, front-loading the purpose and key semantics. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 12 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides essential update semantics and return format options. The agent can infer missing parameter details from related tools like get_inventory_item_template. Completeness is adequate but could be improved with parameter descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low at 17%, but the description adds meaning for 'response_format' by explaining its options and use cases. The 'id' parameter is briefly repeated from the schema. Other parameters remain undocumented, but the PATCH semantics guidance applies generally.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'inventory_item_template' with PATCH semantics. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, get, list, and delete by focusing on updating an existing template.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description instructs to supply the numeric 'id' and only fields to change, with omission leaving others unchanged. While it does not explicitly exclude creation or deletion scenarios, the guidance is sufficient for proper use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds PATCH semantics, idempotency, and return format beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations. It could mention error handling for missing ids, but still provides good behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: purpose/semantics, usage instruction, return format. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 params, nested custom_fields, no output schema), the description explains update semantics and return options adequately. It could provide more detail on the return structure or parameter specifics, but it is largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (36%). The description highlights 'id' and 'response_format' but does not elaborate on other parameters like slug, tags, model, etc. It adds minimal value beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing inventory_item_type' with PATCH semantics, specifying the exact verb and resource. This distinguishes it from create and delete siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly instructs to supply the numeric 'id' and only fields to change, and notes that omitted fields remain unchanged. However, it does not explicitly contrast with when to use create or delete, though the purpose is clear from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it specifies PATCH semantics and output format (Markdown default or JSON). Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with three short paragraphs: purpose, usage instructions, and return format. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the update action, how to invoke it, and response format. It is complete enough for an update operation, though it omits details on validation or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (29%), but the description compensates by explaining that id is required and other fields are optional. However, it does not elaborate on the meaning of parameters like name, label, position, etc., beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing module_bay_template in NetBox (PATCH semantics)', specifying a unique verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling create and get tools by explicitly indicating this is an update operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance: 'Supply the numeric id and only the fields you want to change. Omitting a field leaves it unchanged.' This advises when to use the tool (update existing) and how to specify fields, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create vs update.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructive and idempotent; description adds PATCH semantics and return format options. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded, no extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers update operation, return formats (markdown/json). Lacks mention of potential side effects beyond update, but sufficient for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only 36% schema coverage; description explains partial update but lacks individual parameter explanations. Adequate but not compensating fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Update an existing power_port in NetBox' with PATCH semantics, distinguishing from create/delete siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to supply numeric 'id' and only fields to change. Could mention alternatives like create for new ports.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses PATCH semantics (partial updates) and return format options. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, which are consistent with an update operation. No contradictions and adds behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (3 sentences) and well-structured: purpose, usage instructions, return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Front-loaded with key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main behavior (update with PATCH), required input (id), optional fields, and output format. No output schema is provided but the return format is described. Lacks mention of error conditions or permissions, but for an update tool in a known ecosystem, it's adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 44%; some parameters have schema descriptions (id, tags, custom_fields, response_format) but others lack them. The description compensates by clarifying PATCH semantics and response format, but doesn't elaborate on parameters like asns, name, slug, comments, description, which remain undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update an existing provider in NetBox') and specifies PATCH semantics, distinguishing it from create or delete tools. The resource is explicitly named and the behavior is precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Guidance is provided on when to use: to update an existing provider by supplying numeric id and only fields to change. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, the instructions are clear and sufficient for the tool's single purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description specifies PATCH semantics—only provided fields change. It also explains the output format options (markdown vs JSON), adding value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three efficient sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and return format. No wasted words, front-loaded with key info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 10 parameters, the description covers update semantics and output format but lacks parameter descriptions. It is adequate for an experienced user but insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand all parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 20% (id and response_format have descriptions). The description only mentions the 'id' parameter explicitly and says 'only the fields you want to change', but does not explain the meaning of other 8 parameters like name, type, color, etc., leaving the agent to infer from names/types alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update an existing rear_port_template') and adds PATCH semantics, distinguishing it from creation or retrieval. The resource is explicitly named.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description instructs to supply the numeric 'id' and only fields to change, and notes that omitting leaves unchanged. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives but context (siblings include create/get) makes usage clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses PATCH semantics and return formats beyond annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true). Annotations indicate mutation and idempotency; description adds context on partial update behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences, well-structured, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with purpose and semantics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers essential aspects: PATCH semantics, id requirement, optional fields, and output formats. Lacks detailed explanation of nested objects but schema partially compensates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%; description only mentions 'id' and 'response_format' explicitly. Other parameters (e.g., name, slug, tags) are not explained beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Update an existing region in NetBox' with PATCH semantics, distinguishing it from create/delete/get siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to supply numeric 'id' and only fields to change, and notes that omitting a field leaves it unchanged. Provides output format options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds PATCH semantics and default return format beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency, so the description complements with the PATCH detail and output format choice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences cover purpose, usage, and return format. No wasted words, front-loaded with critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple update tool with no output schema, the description states return value options (Markdown or JSON) and provides enough context for an agent to invoke correctly. Could mention response format more explicitly for chaining.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%. The description mentions id as required and instructs to provide only fields to change, but does not elaborate on individual parameter meanings beyond what schema provides. This is adequate given schema has some descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update an existing rir'), the resource (rir), and the method (PATCH semantics). It distinguishes this from sibling create/delete tools by specifying it's an update operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage instructions: supply the numeric id and only fields to change; omitted fields remain unchanged. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives but the instruction is sufficient for correct use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses PATCH semantics and return format options. Annotations provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which are consistent with update behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations, such as the idempotent nature of PATCH and the choice of output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a return format note. Important information is front-loaded (verb, resource, semantics). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and the presence of annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: action, usage, and return format. It could mention that the 'id' must correspond to an existing supplier or discuss error handling, but it is sufficient for most use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (4 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining response_format options and general usage, but does not provide additional semantics for parameters like name, slug, or comments beyond what the schema offers. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description partially compensates for missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing supplier in NetBox' with PATCH semantics. The verb 'update' and resource 'supplier' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_create_supplier, netbox_get_supplier, and netbox_delete_supplier by implying an existing object.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains how to use the tool: 'Supply the numeric id and only the fields you want to change. Omitting a field leaves it unchanged.' While it does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., create vs update), the PATCH semantics and mention of 'existing supplier' implicitly guide the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Explains PATCH semantics (only provided fields change), aligning with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true). Adds value by detailing update behavior beyond annotations, though could clarify what 'destructive' entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: purpose/semantics, usage instruction, return format. No extraneous text, well front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers update semantics, required id, and return format (markdown/json). Missing mention of error handling or prerequisite (tenant existence), but overall sufficient for a straightforward update tool with no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 44% schema description coverage, the description emphasizes required 'id' and partial update pattern but does not detail each parameter. Schema already provides some descriptions (e.g., tags, custom_fields). Description partially compensates for coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Update an existing tenant in NetBox' with explicit PATCH semantics. Distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_create_tenant or netbox_delete_tenant by specifying update-only behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear instructions: supply numeric id and only fields to change; omitting a field leaves it unchanged. Lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., when to use create instead) but gives sufficient context for correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds important context about NetBox cascading deletes, examples of what gets removed, and HTTP 204 response, going beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the main action, then provides critical warnings in a well-structured manner. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, danger, response, and action required, leaving no gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'id' already described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete', the resource 'asn_range', and the method 'by numeric id'. It distinguishes itself from other delete tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns about destructive and irreversible nature, cascading deletes, and instructs to confirm with user. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by explicitly calling the operation 'DESTRUCTIVE and IRREVERSIBLE' and explaining NetBox's cascade deletion behavior with concrete examples. It also notes the HTTP 204 response, providing rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not cover.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two well-structured paragraphs. The first sentence delivers the core action, followed by critical behavioral warnings and a response note. No redundant or irrelevant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter delete tool, the description is complete: it covers the action, cascade effects, confirmation requirement, and response. Given the annotations and single parameter, nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is one parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides ('Numeric id of the cluster_type to delete'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a cluster_type from NetBox by numeric id,' specifying the exact action, resource, and identifier. It distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools (e.g., netbox_delete_device) by naming the specific resource type 'cluster_type'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It implies usage for deleting a cluster_type by ID, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer other tools or what prerequisites exist (e.g., listing cluster types first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds significant detail about cascading deletes with concrete examples and mentions HTTP 204 response, going beyond annotations which only indicate destructive hint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is fairly concise but includes generic examples of cascading deletes that may be slightly extraneous; still efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, destructive behavior, and return type. Could mention error handling (e.g., 404 if id not found) but sufficient for a simple delete tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and already describes the id parameter; description repeats it but adds no new semantic meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a contact_group from NetBox by numeric id', which is specific with a verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that delete other objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly warns about destructive and irreversible nature, advises user confirmation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like using netbox_get_contact_group first to verify the object.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations. While annotations set destructiveHint=true, the description elaborates with concrete examples of cascading deletes (e.g., deleting a device removes interfaces, power ports, etc.) and explicitly states there is no undo. It also clarifies the return value (HTTP 204 No Content). This is very transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. It opens with the purpose, immediately follows with critical warnings in a clear format (caps, bullet-like), and ends with return information. Every sentence is necessary and contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete tool with complex cascading effects, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to identify the object, destructive nature, cascade examples, required user confirmation, and return format. No output schema exists, but the return is described adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the parameter 'id' with full coverage (100%). The description only restates 'by numeric id' without adding further meaning, such as how to find the ID or any constraints. Given high schema coverage, the description adds minimal value; a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Delete a module from NetBox by numeric id.' It specifies the resource (module) and the method (by numeric id). This is a specific verb-resource pair that is easily distinguishable from sibling tools, even though it does not explicitly differentiate from other delete tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides strong usage context: it warns about destructive and irreversible nature, cascading deletes, and need for user confirmation. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus other delete tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. Siblings include many other delete functions, and no mention of alternatives is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond the 'destructiveHint' annotation by detailing cascading delete behavior with concrete examples (device, site, manufacturer) and states HTTP 204 response. This provides rich behavioral context for safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two paragraphs, front-loads the purpose, and uses clear formatting. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter, the description covers the operation, cascading effects, need for confirmation, and response format. It is fully complete and leaves no significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is simple (one integer 'id' with description) and has 100% coverage. The description does not add further semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a power_outlet from NetBox by numeric id' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from other delete tools in the sibling list, such as netbox_delete_site or netbox_delete_device, beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance to confirm the exact object and cascading effects with the user before calling. It warns about destructiveness and irreversibility but does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes far beyond the annotations by detailing the cascading delete behavior and irreversibility, adding critical context that the annotations themselves do not provide. There is no contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses clear structure. The cascading examples are relevant but could be slightly more tailored to the specific template type; however, the overall length is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the return type (HTTP 204) and the destructive behavior, though it could optionally mention any required permissions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete a rear_port_template from NetBox by numeric id') and the resource, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from other delete tools by specifying 'rear_port_template'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides strong usage guidance by highlighting the destructive and irreversible nature, explaining cascading deletes, and instructing to confirm with the user before calling. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use alternatives but is adequate for a delete operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds value beyond annotations by explaining cascading deletes and the irreversible nature, as well as the HTTP 204 response. The description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint: true) and provides concrete behavioral context, though the cascade examples are generic rather than service-specific.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: first sentence defines the action, then a bold warning followed by explanation and return value. No redundant words; all sentences add value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the resource, the required id, the destructive behavior, cascading effects, user confirmation requirement, and the expected success response. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (id parameter described). The description confirms the parameter is a numeric id but does not add additional meaning beyond the schema description. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('delete'), the resource ('service'), and the identifier ('by numeric id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools which target different resources (e.g., netbox_delete_site, netbox_delete_device). The purpose is immediately obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides strong guidance: warns it is destructive and irreversible, explains cascading deletes, and instructs to confirm with user before calling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., consider using a GET first to verify) or suggest alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by specifying output format options (Markdown vs JSON) and stating it returns the full NetBox object, which is helpful for chaining. No additional behavioral traits disclosed beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: purpose, usage, return format. No redundant information. Front-loaded with essential details, every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and output details adequately. No missing information for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters fully (100% coverage). Description adds meaning by explaining the response_format parameter's use cases ('json' for follow-up calls) and reinforcing the numeric id requirement. Provides context beyond schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Get a single asn from NetBox by numeric id', specifying verb, resource, and method. Distinguishes from sibling netbox_list_asns by mentioning it should be used after locating the object or when id is known.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises using after netbox_list_asns or when id is already available, providing clear when-to-use guidance. Suggests using 'json' format for chaining follow-up calls. No explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it returns 'Markdown detail (default) or JSON with the full NetBox object including nested references', which is useful but not extensive behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, providing usage guidance, and describing output formats. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (get by id with optional format), the description is complete. It explains prerequisites, output formats, and aligns with annotations. No gaps remain for an agent to resolve.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('id' and 'response_format') already described in the input schema. The description does not add new semantic details beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single cluster_group from NetBox by numeric id', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like netbox_list_cluster_groups (retrieves multiple) and netbox_create_cluster_group (creates) by focusing on retrieval of a single object.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'Use after netbox_list_cluster_groups has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This provides clear context and anticipates the agent's workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds return format options but no additional behavioral traits. With annotations, the bar is lower and this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences, no fluff. Purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required param, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains what is returned (Markdown or JSON with nested references) and usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining the purpose of the 'response_format' parameter and when to use JSON for chaining, going beyond schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it retrieves a single device_bay_template by numeric id. Distinguishes from sibling tools like list, create, update, delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: use after list to obtain the id or when id is known. Could be improved by noting that list should be used for multiple results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds return format details (Markdown or JSON) but no additional behavioral traits. Consistent with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very concise, two sentences plus a Returns section. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, annotations, and schema, the description provides all needed context: what it does, when to use, how to use parameters, and return formats. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters with descriptions. Description adds value for response_format ('Use json when chaining follow-up tool calls'), which is helpful beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get a single location from NetBox by numeric id.' It specifies the verb (get), resource (location), and method (by numeric id). It distinguishes from siblings like netbox_list_locations (listing) and netbox_create/update/delete_location.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly guides use after netbox_list_locations or when id is known. Provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use, though it's implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying the return format ('Markdown detail (default) or JSON with the full NetBox object including nested references'), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a returns bullet. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage, and every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of a 'get' tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, and output format. No additional details are necessary for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'id' and 'response_format'. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single platform from NetBox by numeric id.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('platform'), and distinct scope ('single'). It also differentiates from sibling 'netbox_list_platforms' by indicating this tool is for retrieving a specific object.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Use after netbox_list_platforms has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This provides clear context. It does not explicitly list alternatives, but siblings include list and create/update/delete, so alternative usage is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that output includes nested references and supports two formats. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four efficient sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Returns section well-structured. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given annotations and full schema coverage, description covers usage context, return values, and output format. Complete for a simple get tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds minimal extra beyond schema: 'by numeric id' is already in schema, and response_format is fully defined in schema. No significant new meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Get a single prefix from NetBox by numeric id' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by advising use after netbox_list_prefixes or when id is known.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: after netbox_list_prefixes or when id is available. Mentions alternative tool (list_prefixes) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds output format details and nesting info, enhancing transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences plus a short returns line. No fluff, front-loaded with key info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with full annotation coverage and schema, the description provides all necessary context: purpose, usage, return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% with good descriptions. Description echoes schema but adds little new meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Get a single region from NetBox by numeric id', with verb and resource. Differentiates from the list sibling (netbox_list_regions) and other get_ tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises using after netbox_list_regions or when id is known, guiding the agent's workflow. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's addition of return format (Markdown/JSON) and mention of 'full NetBox object including nested references' adds value beyond the structured fields. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—three sentences that are front-loaded and every sentence adds value. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single retrieval by id with two parameters), annotations covering safety, and no output schema needed, the description is complete. It tells when to use, what to expect, and how to format output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. It briefly mentions the id and return format, but the schema already describes parameters adequately. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it 'Get a single virtual_circuit_termination from NetBox by numeric id,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list (which returns multiple) and create/update/delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises using it after netbox_list_virtual_circuit_terminations or when the id is already known, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for a straightforward retrieval tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. Description adds value by specifying return format (markdown or JSON) and that it includes nested references, providing behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: purpose, usage hint, return information. No wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with two parameters, description covers purpose, usage relationship to list tool, and return format. No output schema, but description sufficiently explains output. Annotations fill safety profile.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates the schema's 'numeric id' and output format, adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Get a single virtual_machine_type from NetBox by numeric id', using specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_list_virtual_machine_types by specifying it retrieves a single object by id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to use after netbox_list_virtual_machine_types has located the object or when id is known, providing clear context for when to use this tool. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but usage is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the return format options (markdown or JSON) and mentioning that nested references are included, which goes beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and return info. No fluff, front-loaded structure. Every sentence is necessary and well-placed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get operation with comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and output. No output schema exists, but return format is explained. Completes all necessary contextual information for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no additional hints on id format or response_format usage). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('vm_interface'), and the method ('by numeric id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like netbox_list_vm_interfaces (list) and netbox_update_vm_interface (update), making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use after netbox_list_vm_interfaces has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for creating or listing).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds details on pagination, auto-truncation, and response format, which enriches understanding beyond annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections for common patterns, pagination, filters, and returns. It front-loads the main purpose and is concise despite length. Every section adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description explains the response format (Markdown or JSON shape) including pagination details. It covers common use patterns and filter explanations. For a list tool, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 70%, and the description explains most parameters (q, tag, limit, offset, dates, response_format) clearly. However, three filters (asn, rir_id, tenant_id) are listed without semantic description in the description, relying on schema's type-only info. Description adds moderate value but not full compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List Autonomous System Numbers from NetBox' and differentiates from netbox_get_asn for ID lookups. It specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'ASNs', and distinguishes from sibling tools by suggesting alternative for lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides when to use this tool (discovery, narrow scan) vs. alternatives (use netbox_get_asn for ID lookup). Also outlines pagination and filtering patterns, giving clear guidance on usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds value by detailing pagination mechanics, auto-truncation, and response shape (has_more, next_offset). It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized into sections (common patterns, pagination, resource-specific filters, universal filters, returns), and the primary purpose is stated first. It is somewhat lengthy but justified by the large parameter count. A minor point: some filter descriptions repeat schema info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (22 parameters, no output schema), the description covers pagination, auto-truncation, and response format. It mentions the main sibling tool for retrieval. It does not explain how to chain with other list tools, but that is acceptable for a focused list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 55% (12 of 22 parameters have descriptions). The description adds grouping (resource-specific vs universal filters) and clarifies several filters (e.g., mac_address, has_primary_ip, created_after/before). However, it omits descriptions for site_id, location_id, rack_id, role_id, manufacturer_id, device_type_id, platform_id, tenant_id, and status (despite having an enum). Thus it adds partial but incomplete value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists physical devices from NetBox and distinguishes itself from netbox_get_device by specifying when to use each (e.g., 'use netbox_get_device instead when you already have an id'). It also lists the types of devices, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage patterns: discovery with no filters, lookup by id using a sibling tool, and narrow scans combining fuzzy search with filters. It also explains pagination handling (limit, offset, has_more, next_offset) and auto-truncation behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing pagination behavior (limit, offset, has_more, next_offset) and auto-truncation for large responses. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not cover all edge cases like rate limits or authentication.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections for purpose, common patterns, pagination, filters, and return format. It is relatively long but each section serves a purpose. Minor redundancy in filter descriptions could be trimmed, but overall it is fairly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers pagination, filtering, and return format (Markdown and JSON shapes). It explains how to iteratively retrieve large lists. This is quite complete, though it could mention default return format and how to interpret the JSON response fields more explicitly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 12 parameters. The description enhances by grouping filters into resource-specific and universal, providing usage context like combining filters and examples. This adds moderate value beyond the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists locations within a site (rooms, floors, cages) and distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_get_location for single record lookup by id. The verb 'list' and resource 'locations' are specific, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage patterns: discovery, lookup by id (recommending netbox_get_location), and narrow scan with filters. It also explains pagination usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus other list tools like netbox_list_sites, though the context is clear from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details like pagination auto-truncation, has_more/next_offset, and response format options, going well beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections for patterns, pagination, filters, and returns. It is front-loaded and every sentence is relevant, though it could be slightly more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large number of sibling tools and no output schema, the description covers common patterns, pagination, filtering, and output formats. It could mention the exact shape of markdown output, but overall it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 70%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for universal filters and pagination but does not describe resource-specific filters (name, name__ic, device_type_id) in detail. Some parameters lack description in both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List module bay templates from NetBox' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool netbox_get_module_bay_template by advising to use that when an id is already known.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage patterns: discovery with no filters, lookup by id suggesting get instead, and narrow scan with filters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool beyond the get alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description elaborates on the destructive behavior with concrete cascade examples (deleting a device removes interfaces, power ports, IPs, etc.) and specifies the return value (HTTP 204 No Content). This adds significant context that annotations alone do not provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (~100 words) and well-structured: a clear first sentence defining purpose, followed by warnings, cascade examples, usage instructions, and return information. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: destructive nature, cascade effects, required user confirmation, and return value. It lacks explicit mention of authentication requirements or error handling for non-existent IDs, but these are common omissions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the 'id' parameter well (integer, minimum 1, description). The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameter beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete), the resource (asset from NetBox), and the method (by numeric id). The tool name and description together make the purpose unambiguous, distinguishing it from other delete tools among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides strong guidance on when and how to use: it warns about destructive and irreversible consequences, explains cascading deletes with examples, and instructs to confirm with user before calling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools for viewing or updating assets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining the irreversible nature, cascading deletes with concrete examples, and the HTTP 204 No Content response. It fully discloses behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, followed by warnings, cascade explanation, and response detail. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter, no output schema, and existing annotations, the description adequately covers behavior, return value, and preconditions. It could add error handling for absent IDs, but overall it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of the single parameter 'id' with a clear description. The tool description adds 'by numeric id' but does not provide further semantic enrichment beyond the schema. Score at baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Delete a circuit from NetBox by numeric id,' clearly specifying the action (delete) and the resource (circuit). It distinguishes this tool from sibling delete tools by explicitly naming the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (deleting a circuit) and includes warnings about destructiveness and cascading deletes, advising confirmation with the user. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Disclosure goes beyond annotations: explains cascade deletes with concrete examples, emphasizes irreversibility, and mentions HTTP 204 response. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two paragraphs: first concise action, second detailed risks. No fluff, but could be slightly more concise while keeping all info. Front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete operation with one parameter, the description covers action, parameter, risks, response, and required user confirmation. Complete given no output schema and good annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter 'id' with schema coverage 100%. Description adds 'by numeric id' but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Delete a circuit_group from NetBox by numeric id' – specific verb+resource+scope. Title matches. Clearly distinguishes from other delete tools by resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly warns about destructive and irreversible nature, cascade deletes, and instructs to confirm with user. Does not compare to alternative tools but provides clear context for when to use (deleting by ID after confirmation).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description exceeds the annotations by detailing the cascade behavior with concrete examples, stating 'no undo', and specifying the HTTP 204 response. Annotations already set destructiveHint: true, but the description adds essential context about what gets destroyed implicitly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: four sentences covering purpose, warning, details, and return. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required param, no output schema), the description provides purpose, behavioral context, and a confirmation guideline. It lacks explicit error handling or what happens if the id is invalid, but these are standard. Overall adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the single parameter 'id' is described in the schema as 'Numeric id of the device_bay_template to delete.' The description states 'by numeric id' which aligns but does not add new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Delete a device_bay_template from NetBox by numeric id' – a specific verb and resource. The title 'Delete Device_bay_template' reinforces this. It is clearly distinguished from sibling delete operations by naming the exact entity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description warns that the operation is 'DESTRUCTIVE and IRREVERSIBLE', explains cascade deletion, and advises confirming with the user before calling. However, it does not explicitly compare to other delete tools (e.g., when to use delete_device_bay_template vs delete_device_bay) to help an agent choose correctly among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond annotations by detailing cascading deletes with concrete examples and stating irreversibility. It also mentions the HTTP 204 response, providing full behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a purpose line, a warning paragraph with bullet-like clarity, and a return statement. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the destructive nature and confirmation requirement well. However, it could mention that the id must first be obtained via netbox_get_fhrp_group or netbox_list_fhrp_groups to complete the workflow context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage and a single parameter described in the schema as 'Numeric id of the fhrp_group to delete', the description adds only 'by numeric id' which is redundant. It does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete), the resource (fhrp_group), and the method (by numeric id). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by its specific resource, and the use of 'fhrp_group' is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs confirming with the user before calling due to destructiveness, but it does not compare with other delete tools or specify when to use this versus related tools like netbox_delete_fhrp_group_assignment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by detailing the cascading behavior with concrete examples. It also states that the operation is irreversible and that confirmation is needed, providing a comprehensive understanding of the tool's effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by important warnings. It is slightly verbose due to examples, but every sentence adds value. It earns a 4 for being informative without unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, required input, behavioral impact, and expected response (HTTP 204). It is complete and leaves no gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the 'id' parameter (type, minimum, description), so the description adds no new semantic value. According to the guidelines, when schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action ('Delete a inventory_item_group from NetBox') and the required parameter ('by numeric id'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling delete tools by naming the specific resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: it warns about destructiveness and irreversibility, advises confirming with the user, and explains cascading deletes. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which is forgivable for a delete tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes far beyond the annotations (which already mark destructiveHint=true). It explains the cascading deletion behavior in detail with concrete examples (e.g., deleting a manufacturer removes its device types), warns of irreversibility, and describes the HTTP 204 response. This provides comprehensive behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a concise first line for the core purpose, followed by a clear warning in all caps, then a detailed explanation of cascading behavior, and finally a note on the response. It is efficient without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the action, the required parameter (id), the destructive and cascading nature, the need for user confirmation, and the expected response (HTTP 204). It is fully sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'id' is already fully described in the input schema with a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or syntax guidance beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Delete a manufacturer from NetBox by numeric id', providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the object type (manufacturer) and includes contextual information about cascading deletes, which further clarifies the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns that the operation is destructive and irreversible, and instructs the agent to confirm the exact object and cascading effects with the user before calling. This provides strong guidance on when and how to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like update_manufacturer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, but the description goes further by detailing cascade deletion with examples (e.g., deleting a device removes interfaces, IPs), emphasizing irreversibility, and noting the HTTP 204 success response. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with three concise paragraphs: action, behavioral warning, and response. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter delete tool, the description covers purpose, parameter, cascading behavior, and response. It is missing explicit mention of permissions or precondition that the prefix must exist, but overall is very complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', and the description reinforces it is a 'numeric id'. The description adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete a prefix'), the resource ('from NetBox'), and the method ('by numeric id'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools such as netbox_create_prefix and netbox_update_prefix.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit warnings about destructiveness, irreversibility, and cascade effects, advising user confirmation before use. It lacks explicit mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds significant context beyond annotations: cascading deletes, irreversibility, and success response (HTTP 204). No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences, front-loaded purpose, no redundancy. Efficient yet informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers safety, return value, and behavioral impact. Complete for a delete tool with no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Single parameter 'id' with schema description covering its meaning. Description adds no further semantics, but schema coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: 'Delete a provider from NetBox by numeric id.' Distinguishes from siblings like netbox_delete_provider_account.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly warns of destructive and irreversible nature, cascading deletes, and advises user confirmation. Could mention when not to use, but provides strong usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the cascade deletion behavior and irreversibility, including specific examples of what gets removed. Annotations only indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical context about the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose, bold warnings, and return format. It is concise but covers necessary details. Minor redundancy in stating DESTRUCTIVE and IRREVERSIBLE separately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter, the description completely covers what is needed: the action, the risks, cascade examples, and the success response. No output schema is needed as the tool returns HTTP 204.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description reinforces that only a numeric id is needed. It does not add new semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already adequately describes the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a provider_account from NetBox by numeric id.' It uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (provider_account), and the name itself distinguishes it from many sibling delete tools for other objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: only after user confirmation due to destructive and irreversible nature. It does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the warning is sufficient for safe usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true. The description goes beyond by detailing cascade behavior with specific examples and noting the HTTP 204 response. This adds valuable context about what changes occur and the expected confirmation. However, the description could also mention required permissions or rate limits, which would push it to a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a clear warning and clarification. Each sentence adds value, though the cascade examples could be slightly condensed. Overall, it is well-structured and informative without excessive verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, delete operation) and the annotations already conveying destructiveness, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, destruction behavior, cascade consequences, need for user confirmation, and expected response (HTTP 204). No output schema exists, but the response is described adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides a full description for the single parameter 'id' ('Numeric id of the purchase to delete.'). The description's first sentence reiterates 'by numeric id' but adds no new constraints or format details beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Delete a purchase from NetBox by numeric id,' providing a clear verb (delete), resource (purchase), and method (numeric id). This is sufficiently specific and distinguishes the tool from other delete and non-delete siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns that the operation is destructive, irreversible, and cascades deletes. It instructs the agent to confirm with the user before calling and provides concrete examples of cascade effects (e.g., deleting a device removes interfaces, ports, IPs). This is excellent guidance on when and how to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description provides critical details: cascading delete behavior with concrete examples (devices, sites, manufacturers), explicitly states 'There is no undo', and describes the success response (HTTP 204 No Content). This fully discloses the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a concise first sentence stating the action, a dedicated warning section in a paragraph, and a brief note on the return value. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: action, cascading effects, return type, and user confirmation requirement. It could mention error conditions (e.g., what happens if the id doesn't exist), but this is a minor omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, 'id', has 100% schema coverage with a clear description. The tool description adds 'by numeric id' but does not provide additional semantic value beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete a route_target') and resource ('from NetBox by numeric id'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling delete tools that target other NetBox objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns that the operation is destructive and irreversible, advises user confirmation before calling, and explains cascading deletes. It does not, however, contrast with other delete tools or specify when not to use this tool, but given the context, the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description details cascading deletes with concrete examples (e.g., 'deleting a device removes its interfaces'), confirms irreversibility, and states the HTTP 204 response. This fully informs the agent of consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two paragraphs) and well-structured with a brief opening, a warning section in caps, and a closing note on response. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately covers return value (HTTP 204), required parameter, and destructive semantics. It could mention that the id must refer to an existing object, but that is implied. Overall, sufficient for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'id' is fully covered in the input schema with a description. The tool description repeats this without adding new semantic information. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete'), the resource ('virtual_circuit_type'), and the identifier ('by numeric id'). This is specific and distinguishes the tool from sibling delete tools targeting other objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns about the destructive and irreversible nature, explains cascading deletes, and instructs confirmation with the user before calling. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools, but the warnings are strong enough for safe usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds return format details (markdown/json) and nested references. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get tool with no output schema, description adequately covers return format and nested references. No missing critical details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage; description adds context about numeric id and explains response_format options beyond schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets a single asset_role by numeric id, and distinguishes itself from netbox_list_asset_roles. It explicitly references use after the list tool or when id is known.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance to use after netbox_list_asset_roles or when id is known, but does not explicitly state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior; description adds return format options and that nested references are included, providing additional context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise, with three short lines covering purpose, usage, and return format. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: what it does, when to use, and returns. Missing error handling details but acceptable for a read-only get.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters fully; description adds practical guidance for response_format ('use json when chaining'), enhancing the schema's enums.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves a single circuit_termination by numeric id, distinguishing it from list and other get tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises using after netbox_list_circuit_terminations or when id is known, providing clear context for use, though does not list explicit alternatives for other object types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying return format options (markdown and JSON) and their use cases. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description complements them well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short paragraphs are highly concise and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage context, then return details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description covers purpose, usage sequence, and return format. While it doesn't detail error handling, it is adequate for a simple read tool with annotations. No output schema is needed since format is described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds usage guidance for the response_format parameter, explaining when to use JSON for chaining follow-up calls, which goes beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get a single console_server_port_template from NetBox by numeric id.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from the list sibling by explicitly mentioning the list tool for prior location.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises 'Use after netbox_list_console_server_port_templates has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This provides clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds return format details (markdown default, json option) and mentions nested references. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise with three clear sections: purpose, usage, returns. Every sentence earns its place, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description explains return formats (markdown vs json) and nested references. Could mention error handling or missing id behavior, but sufficient for a single-get tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds practical guidance: 'by numeric id' and 'Use json when chaining follow-up tool calls', which adds value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single contact_role from NetBox by numeric id', using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like netbox_list_contact_roles (list) and netbox_create_contact_role (create/update).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to use after netbox_list_contact_roles has located the object, or when id is known. Provides clear context for when to use, though does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by explaining the output format (Markdown or JSON) and suggesting use of 'json' for chaining. This provides behavioral context beyond the structured fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then usage context, then return format. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, clear annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains the return format and usage context but does not mention error handling for invalid IDs. However, the annotations cover safety aspects, and the output format is well described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning for both parameters: it clarifies that 'id' is numeric and should come from a list operation, and it explains the 'response_format' parameter with usage hints (e.g., use 'json' for chaining). This adds practical guidance beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'ip_address', and the method 'by numeric id'. It distinguishes itself from netbox_list_ip_addresses by indicating it retrieves a single object after listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: after netbox_list_ip_addresses has located the object, or when the id is already known. It does not explicitly state when not to use it but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing the return format options (Markdown vs JSON) and their intended use (e.g., JSON for chaining). No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three compact sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, and output format. No filler or redundancy. Information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with 2 parameters and good annotations, the description covers the essential workflow (get by id after list) and output choices. It lacks error handling details or structure of the manufacturer object, but schema and annotations compensate adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful context: for id, it explains when to have it (after listing); for response_format, it advises using 'json' when chaining follow-up calls. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single manufacturer from NetBox by numeric id.' It specifies the verb (get), resource (manufacturer), and scope (single by id). It distinguishes from sibling list and other get tools by focusing on manufacturer and mentioning usage after netbox_list_manufacturers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to use: 'Use after netbox_list_manufacturers has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This gives clear context and implies not to use without an id. It could be improved by mentioning when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by detailing return formats (markdown or JSON with nested references), which goes beyond annotation hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: purpose, usage, returns. No wasted words; all information is purposeful and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description compensates by describing return formats and nested references. With good annotations covering safety, the description is adequately complete for a simple retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds guidance for the response_format parameter ('use json when chaining follow-up tool calls'), providing actionable context beyond the schema enum.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get a single rir from NetBox by numeric id', specifying the verb, resource, and identification method. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like netbox_list_rirs, netbox_create_rir, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to use after netbox_list_rirs has located the object or when id is already known, providing clear usage context. Could also mention not to use for listing or mutation, but sibling context makes this implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the return format options ('Markdown detail (default) or JSON with the full NetBox object including nested references'). Annotations already mark it as readOnly and idempotent, so no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very concise and well-structured: purpose, usage guidance, and return format each get a sentence. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains return formats and the workflow (use after list). It could potentially mention that the response includes all fields, but it already says 'full NetBox object including nested references', which is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. Description adds context about the id being used 'by numeric id' and mentions response_format in the returns, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get a single vrf from NetBox by numeric id' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool netbox_list_vrfs by advising to use this tool after locating the object via list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises when to use this tool: 'Use after netbox_list_vrfs has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This provides clear context and differentiates from the list tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: pagination details (limit, offset, has_more, next_offset), auto-truncation for large lists, response format options (markdown/json), and return shape.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-organized into clear sections: purpose, common patterns, pagination, filters, and returns. Front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 12 parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers usage patterns, pagination, filter types, and response format. Could mention typical fields in items but remains adequate for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 58% (7/12 params described). Description lists resource-specific filters but provides no additional detail beyond the schema's own descriptions. Universal filters (q, tag, created_after/before) are explained. Does not significantly add meaning for undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'List device console server ports from NetBox' (verb+resource). Distinguishes from sibling tool netbox_get_console_server_port by noting it is for lookup by id. Common patterns further clarify usage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit guidance on when to use (discovery with no filters, narrow scan with filters) and when not to (lookup by id use netbox_get_console_server_port). Also explains pagination continuation pattern.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: pagination behavior (limit max 1000, default 50, auto-truncate, has_more/next_offset), response format options (markdown default, JSON), and resource-specific filters. No contradictions. Score 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (initial statement, common patterns, pagination, filters, returns). Every sentence adds value. It is concise yet comprehensive, front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words. Score 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, pagination, filters, and response format. It does not explain the item properties (no output schema) but that is acceptable since the annotations indicate read-only. Could be more explicit about JSON response shape. Overall, fairly complete. Score 4.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 78%, so baseline is 3. The description groups parameters into categories (resource-specific, universal, pagination) and adds context for some (e.g., tag is AND-filter, limit max/default). However, it does not add meaning for protocol and group_id beyond listing them. The schema already describes most parameters. Score 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'List First Hop Redundancy Protocol groups (VRRP/HSRP/etc.) from NetBox.', clearly specifying the verb 'list' and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling netbox_get_fhrp_group by stating 'use netbox_get_fhrp_group instead when you already have an id.' This meets the 5 criteria: specific verb+resource, distinguishes from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance for when to use this tool vs alternatives: for lookup by id, use netbox_get_fhrp_group. It also outlines common patterns (discovery, narrow scan). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for assignments). Still, it is clear enough. Score 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds pagination behavior (limit, offset, auto-truncation, has_more) and response format details. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with headers and lists, front-loaded with purpose. Some redundancy in listing filters that lack descriptions, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, description explains return format and pagination. Covers all relevant aspects: filters, patterns, alternative tools. Complete for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 64%; description compensates for limit and offset with usage notes, but resource-specific filters (device_id, device, name, name__ic) are listed without explanation. Universal filters have adequate schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List bays that hold modules from NetBox' and distinguishes from the sibling tool netbox_get_module_bay for lookup by id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit patterns for discovery, lookup by id (recommending alternative tool), and narrow scan with filters. Clear when to use vs not use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: pagination details (limit 1-1000, offset, has_more, next_offset), auto-truncation for large lists, and response format options. This enriches the behavioral understanding beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (common patterns, pagination, filter categories, returns). While slightly verbose, it front-loads the core purpose and uses bullet-like structure. Every section adds information, but some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Supports pagination and filtering' is implicit).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a listing tool with many siblings, this description is comprehensive. It covers pagination mechanics, filter usage, output formats, and truncation behavior. There is no output schema, but the 'Returns' section clearly describes the JSON shape and Markdown default. The agent can fully understand how to invoke and chain calls.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds value by categorizing filters into 'Resource-specific' and 'Universal', and by providing usage patterns like combining 'q' with other filters. It also clarifies the pagination parameters interactively, which is not in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists OS platforms from NetBox with concrete examples (EOS, NX-OS, Junos). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like netbox_get_platform by explicitly recommending the latter for ID lookups, and from create/update tools by its read-only nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage patterns: Discovery (no filters), Lookup by ID (delegate to netbox_get_platform), and Narrow scan (combine filters). It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the pattern coverage is strong and implies appropriate contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details beyond these, such as pagination mechanics (max limit 1000, default 50, auto-truncation, 'has_more' and 'next_offset' fields) and response format options. This provides useful context for how the tool behaves without contradicting the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (common patterns, pagination, filters, returns) and front-loads the core purpose. It is moderately long but each sentence adds information; no redundant or extraneous content. The structure aids readability for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by fully detailing the pagination mechanism, filter categories, and return format (markdown default with a JSON shape including total, count, offset, etc.). It covers all essential aspects of a list endpoint, including auto-truncation behavior, making it complete for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes 7 of 10 parameters (70% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by grouping parameters into 'Resource-specific filters' and 'Universal filters' with brief usage hints, but it does not provide detailed semantics beyond what the schema offers. For the three resource-specific filters (manufacturer_id, model, slug), the description lists them without explanation, so the extra value is limited.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'List predefined rack models from NetBox,' which clearly states the action and resource. It further distinguishes from the sibling tool netbox_get_rack_type by advising to use that instead when an ID is already known, providing clear differentiation among similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly outlines three common usage patterns: discovery (no filters), lookup by ID (with a direct alternative), and narrow scan (combining filters). It also advises when to use the 'json' response format for chaining follow-up calls, offering practical guidance on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds context beyond annotations: pagination behavior with limit/offset, auto-truncation for large lists, and return format options (markdown/json). No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for common patterns, pagination, filters, and return format. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers pagination, filtering, response format, and return shape, which is sufficient for a list tool with no output schema. It lacks a brief explanation of what RIRs are, but that is not critical given the context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 78%, so baseline is 3. The description lists filters and their types but does not add significant meaning for 'name' and 'slug' beyond what their names imply. The description does not repeat schema descriptions but groups filters effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists Regional Internet Registries from NetBox, and explicitly differentiates from netbox_get_rir when an id is available. The verb 'list' and resource 'RIRs' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage patterns: discovery with no filters, lookup by id pointing to sibling tool, narrow scan with filters, and pagination details. It also gives alternatives, making it easy for an agent to decide when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. The description adds pagination details (limit, offset, has_more, next_offset), auto-truncation behavior, and return format options (markdown vs JSON). This provides useful context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized into sections: purpose, common patterns, pagination, filters, and return format. It is concise, uses bullet points elegantly, and front-loads the core purpose. No unnecessary sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, no output schema, the description covers pagination behavior, filter options, and return shape. It could detail the fields within JSON items, but the JSON structure outline is provided. Slight gap in item field documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 78% and includes descriptions for most parameters (q, tag, limit, offset, created_after, etc.). The description explains pagination and the function of filters, but parameters 'name' and 'virtual_machine_id' lack additional detail. Overall, the description adds value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'List virtual machine disks from NetBox.' which is a clear verb+resource statement. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'netbox_get_virtual_disk' by recommending it for ID-based lookups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides common usage patterns: discovery, lookup by id (with alternative tool), and narrow scan. It gives contextual guidance but does not exhaustively list when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive hint. The description adds auto-truncation of large lists and pagination mechanics (has_more, next_offset), which provides valuable behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with sections for general usage, pagination, filters, and returns. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the primary purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers pagination behavior, filter semantics, and return format. It explains auto-truncation and pagination tokens. However, it omits a description for the 'name' parameter and does not explain what a VLAN translation policy is, which could be inferred from context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (88%), so the description's value is reduced. It provides usage patterns for 'q' and tag, but the 'name' parameter is listed without explanation in both the schema and description, missing an opportunity to add clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List VLAN translation policies from NetBox' and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by advising 'use netbox_get_vlan_translation_policy instead when you already have an id.' This provides a specific verb+resource and differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description outlines common patterns: discovery (no filters), lookup by ID (alternate tool), and narrow scan (with filters). It includes pagination instructions and when to use JSON format for chaining, giving explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies PATCH semantics (modifies only provided fields) and describes the return format (markdown or JSON). Annotations already indicate destructive hint, so the description complements them well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is five sentences, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, nested objects) and the lack of output schema, the description covers the main usage points: PATCH behavior, required id, optional fields, and response format. It does not explicitly state that the contact group must exist, but that is implied. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 50% schema coverage, the description provides essential parameter guidance: it emphasizes that only the 'id' is required and that omitted fields are unchanged. It also explains the 'response_format' parameter and the nature of the response. This adds meaningful context that the schema alone does not fully convey.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update'), the resource ('existing contact_group'), and the semantics ('PATCH semantics — only provided fields are changed'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create and delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains how to use the tool ('Supply the numeric id and only the fields you want to change. Omitting a field leaves it unchanged.'). It does not explicitly specify when not to use it, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds PATCH semantics behavior (only provided fields change) beyond annotations that declare mutability and idempotency. Also explains return format options. Annotations already cover safety profile, so the extra detail on partial updates is valuable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three well-structured sentences: purpose/semantics, usage instruction, return description. No extraneous information, front-loaded, and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers essential aspects: update action, PATCH semantics, return formats. Could mention error handling or prerequisite checks (e.g., provider existence), but for a standard update tool it is sufficiently complete given the schema and annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 44% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the key parameter 'id' and the overall update pattern. It also details the response_format parameter, including when to use each option. Other parameters lack additional explanation, but the core behavior is well-supported.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool updates an existing provider_network with PATCH semantics. The verb 'Update' and resource 'provider_network' are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling create/delete tools by specifying 'Update' and 'existing'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description specifies to supply the numeric 'id' and only fields to change, implying the object must exist. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for creation), but the context is clear. No guidance on prerequisites like provider existence, but the semantics are well conveyed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by explaining PATCH semantics and return format (Markdown summary or JSON). Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with these (only provided fields changed, implying safe updates). No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second gives usage, then lists return format. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (30 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential usage pattern and output options. It could include more context about typical use cases or required field relationships, but it is largely complete for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (23%), but the description does not compensate by detailing specific parameters beyond 'id' and 'response_format'. It provides a generic principle ('only provided fields are changed') but lacks parameter-level clarification. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update an existing rack'), the resource ('rack in NetBox'), and the semantics ('PATCH semantics — only provided fields are changed'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_create_rack and netbox_delete_rack.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage instructions: supply numeric 'id' and only fields to change. It lacks explicit mention of when not to use this tool or alternatives, but the guidance is clear and sufficient for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses PATCH semantics, which aligns with annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true meaning modifies state). It adds context beyond annotations by explaining that only provided fields are changed and describing the return format options (Markdown or JSON). No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose and PATCH semantics, second gives usage instructions, third lists return formats. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 1 required, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers update semantics, usage pattern, and return format. It is adequate, though it could explicitly state that the response includes the updated object.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (4 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning by explaining the PATCH pattern (supply id and fields to change) and clarifying the response_format parameter's purpose and default. This compensates for the coverage gap, providing value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it updates an existing rack_role in NetBox with PATCH semantics. The verb 'update' and resource 'rack_role' are explicit, and among sibling tools like netbox_get_rack_role, netbox_create_rack_role, netbox_delete_rack_role, this tool is uniquely identified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance: supply numeric 'id' and only fields to change; omitted fields remain unchanged. It also mentions return format options. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create or delete), which is acceptable for a straightforward update tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses PATCH semantics, emphasizing that only provided fields are changed. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations (which indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description clarifies it's a partial update, not destructive). Also mentions return format options.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: 5 sentences covering purpose, usage, and return behavior. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Reasonably complete for an update tool with multiple optional fields. Explains partial update behavior and response format options. Lacks info on error handling or validation constraints, but schema covers parameter limits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 44%. The description reinforces the 'id' parameter's role but does not add meaning beyond the schema for other parameters like name, ports, protocol, etc. It does not compensate for undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Update an existing service_template in NetBox (PATCH semantics — only provided fields are changed).' The verb 'Update' and resource 'service_template' are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like create, get, list, delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear instructions: 'Supply the numeric 'id' and only the fields you want to change. Omitting a field leaves it unchanged.' This tells how to use the tool effectively. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like create_service_template.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes destructive and irreversible nature, cascading deletes with concrete examples, and the HTTP 204 response. This goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true) by explaining specific behaviors and consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loads the purpose, and efficiently covers the warning, explanation, and response in just a few sentences. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, its risks, and the expected response. No additional context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'id' is already fully described in the schema ('Numeric id of the circuit_group_assignment to delete'). The description adds no new semantic information beyond restating that deletion is by numeric id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a circuit_group_assignment from NetBox by numeric id', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from the many sibling delete tools by naming the specific object type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to confirm with the user before calling due to irreversibility and cascading deletes, providing clear context on when to use. However, it does not mention alternative tools (e.g., get or list) for verification.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing the cascade delete mechanism with concrete examples, stating there is no undo, and noting the HTTP 204 No Content response. This provides excellent behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear first sentence for purpose, a critical warning paragraph, and a final line about the response. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, behavioral warnings, and return value. It is complete and leaves no significant gaps given the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the 'id' parameter (type integer, minimum 1). The description adds 'by numeric id' but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete a console_port from NetBox by numeric id.' It specifies the resource (console_port) and the identifier method (numeric id), distinguishing it from sibling tools that target other objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides strong usage guidance by emphasizing the destructive and irreversible nature, explaining cascade deletes, and instructing to confirm with the user before calling. It does not explicitly state alternatives but the context is clear for a delete operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description strongly emphasizes the destructive and irreversible nature, explains cascading deletes with examples, and notes the HTTP 204 response. This goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the action, and uses brief but impactful warnings. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, its risks, and response. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter, so the description's mention of 'numeric id' adds minimal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it deletes a console_server_port_template by numeric id. It is specific and distinct from sibling delete tools, which are for other object types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises to confirm the exact object and cascading effects with the user before calling. However, it does not provide alternative tools or exclusions, which is acceptable given the clear purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description details irreversibility, cascading deletes (with examples), and the HTTP 204 response. This fully discloses behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the action, then provides essential warnings in a concise block. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, warnings, cascading effects, and return value. Fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear 'id' parameter description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a device from NetBox by numeric id' — a specific verb (delete) and resource (device). It distinguishes from siblings like netbox_get_device, netbox_create_device, and netbox_update_device.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description warns of destructive, irreversible actions and cascading deletes, and advises confirming with the user. It implies using get_device first but does not explicitly list when not to use. Could be more direct about prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations' destructiveHint: true. It explains cascading deletes with concrete examples and the HTTP 204 response, revealing the full impact and what to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences: purpose, destructive warning with examples, and return value. Every sentence adds unique value, and the most critical information (destructive nature) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, behavioral impact, cascading effects, required user confirmation, and return format. No output schema exists, but the return value is described (HTTP 204).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'id' is fully described in the input schema with type and minimum. The description only restates 'by numeric id,' adding no new semantic information. With 100% schema coverage, baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a fhrp_group_assignment from NetBox by numeric id,' which is a specific verb plus resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that perform create, update, or list operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns that the operation is destructive and irreversible, and advises confirming the object and cascading effects with the user. While it does not list specific alternatives, the guidance is clear and appropriate for a delete operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It explicitly states 'DESTRUCTIVE and IRREVERSIBLE' and explains cascading deletes with examples (device interfaces, power ports, etc.), adding significant context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. Also mentions HTTP 204 response.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: 5 sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide essential warnings. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, parameter, behavior (destructive, cascading), and return value (HTTP 204). No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the single 'id' parameter (100% coverage). The description repeats 'by numeric id' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a interface from NetBox by numeric id,' specifying the verb (delete), resource (interface), and required input (numeric id). It distinguishes from sibling delete tools by naming the specific resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage guidance by warning of destructiveness and advising confirmation with the user before calling. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds critical context: the operation is irreversible, NetBox cascades deletes (with concrete examples), and there is no undo. It also notes the HTTP 204 response. This goes well beyond annotations, providing rich behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a clear purpose statement, followed by a well-structured paragraph about destructive behavior and cascading, then a brief note on the response. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the formatting aids readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive, cascading deletes, single parameter), the description is complete. It covers the operation, behavior, confirmation needed, and return value. No output schema exists, but the description adequately describes the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one required integer id. The description does not add meaningful semantics beyond restating that the id is numeric. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Delete a inventory_item_role from NetBox by numeric id.' It identifies the specific verb (delete) and resource (inventory_item_role), clearly distinguishing it from sibling delete tools for other resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description warns that the operation is destructive and irreversible, mentions NetBox cascading deletes with examples, and advises confirming the object and cascade effects with the user before calling. While it does not explicitly say when not to use it, the caution implies it should only be used after careful user confirmation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: cascading deletes, irreversibility, and the HTTP 204 response. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value (warnings, cascade examples, usage instruction, response). No unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter delete tool with annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: action, parameter, destructive behavior, cascading, confirmation guidance, and response format. It is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond 'by numeric id,' so it meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a inventory_item_template from NetBox by numeric id.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from many sibling delete tools for different objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes strong warnings about destructiveness and cascading, and instructs to confirm with the user. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., soft delete).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds significant behavioral context: cascading deletes with examples, irreversibility, and HTTP 204 response. This goes well beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a single sentence stating the action, followed by essential warnings in separate paragraphs. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: the action, warning about cascading deletes, confirmation requirement, and response type. It is fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the 'id' parameter. The description reiterates 'by numeric id' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a ip_range from NetBox by numeric id', specifying the action 'delete', the resource 'ip_range', and the identifier type 'numeric id'. The title also matches. This distinguishes it from other delete tools by resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage, emphasizing destructive and irreversible nature, cascading deletes, and the need to confirm with user. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like update or get.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds significant context: it labels the operation as 'DESTRUCTIVE and IRREVERSIBLE', explains cascade deletes for various object types, and notes the HTTP 204 response. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by essential warnings. Every sentence adds value (destructive warning, cascade explanation, confirmation requirement, return type). It is concise for the complexity of the behavior it conveys.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, and return type. It explains cascade deletes even for other object types, providing comprehensive context for a safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the parameter 'id' is already described in the schema as 'Numeric id of the mac_address to delete.' The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'mac_address' with the method 'by numeric id'. Among many sibling delete tools, this one is specifically for mac_address, making it distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit caution about destructiveness, cascade deletes, and requires user confirmation. However, it does not explicitly compare with other delete tools or state when not to use it, beyond the general caution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly labels the action as 'DESTRUCTIVE and IRREVERSIBLE,' explains cascade deletion with examples (device, site, manufacturer), and notes the HTTP 204 response. This far exceeds the bare destructiveHint annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the action, followed by a warning block, examples, and the response. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: action, parameter, destructive behavior, cascade risks, user confirmation requirement, and success response. It is fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage and only one parameter (id), the description adds minimal additional meaning: it reiterates 'by numeric id' and states the success response, but the schema already documents the parameter fully. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Delete a module_bay_template from NetBox by numeric id,' providing a specific verb and resource. The title and sibling context further distinguish it from other delete tools, though no explicit sibling differentiation is needed given the clear object naming.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description instructs to confirm the exact object and cascade effects with the user before calling, which is a strong usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like netbox_delete_module_bay, relying on the tool's name and object specificity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds significant detail beyond the destructiveHint annotation: explains cascading behavior with concrete examples, states the HTTP 204 response, and emphasizes irreversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise and well-structured: single sentence for purpose, followed by a clear warning paragraph, and a final sentence on the response. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter destructive tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, safety, cascade behavior, and response completely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'id' is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete a module_type') and identifies the resource and identifier method ('by numeric id'). While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools, the resource name is specific enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit instructions: warns that the operation is destructive and irreversible, explains cascading deletions, and instructs the agent to confirm with the user before calling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds significant context beyond annotations: 'DESTRUCTIVE and IRREVERSIBLE' with cascade examples and 'There is no undo.' It also specifies the return format (HTTP 204). No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very concise: one sentence for action, then structured warnings, then return info. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cascade behavior, confirmation requirement, and return format. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Single parameter id with 100% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'by numeric id' which aligns with the schema but adds no deeper semantics. Baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Delete a power_outlet_template from NetBox by numeric id,' clearly stating the verb (delete), resource (power_outlet_template), and method (by numeric id). This distinguishes it from the many other sibling delete tools targeting different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns about cascading deletes and instructs to confirm with the user before calling, but does not mention alternative tools or situations when deletion should be avoided (e.g., using update instead). This is minor given the nature of a delete tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant value beyond the annotations by detailing cascading deletes (e.g., removing a device removes interfaces, power ports, and assigned IPs) and the HTTP 204 response. This contextualizes the destructive hint annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and structured logically—purpose, warnings, and response. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, cascading side effects, and expected response. It is complete given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage with a descriptive comment for the 'id' parameter ('Numeric id of the rack to delete'). The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already offers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a rack from NetBox by numeric id', specifying the action (delete), resource (rack), and method (by numeric id). It distinguishes this tool from other sibling tools like netbox_get_rack or netbox_update_rack.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description warns that the operation is destructive, irreversible, and cascading, advising to confirm with the user. It does not explicitly compare to alternative tools, but the destructive nature and confirmation requirement provide clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial details: the cascade deletion behavior (with examples) and the HTTP 204 response. This goes beyond annotations to inform the agent about consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, followed by essential warnings and return info. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, how to use it, behavioral caveats, and the response format. It is completely adequate for an agent to safely invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description only repeats what the schema says about the id parameter ('by numeric id'). No additional meaning or usage hints beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete), the resource (rack_role), and the method (by numeric id). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which all have different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns about destructive and irreversible nature and instructs to confirm with the user before calling. However, it does not compare with alternative tools (e.g., update to deactivate), but for a delete tool this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description explains cascading deletes, irreversibility, and the HTTP 204 response. This provides critical behavioral context that annotations alone lack.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Six sentences, each adding value. Front-loaded with purpose. Includes essential warnings without verbosity. Minor improvement possible by merging the cascading examples into a more general statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers input, behavior, and output sufficiently. Could mention that the object must exist, but it's implied by the delete action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'id' already described. The description adds no new semantic information beyond confirming it's a numeric id, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with a clear verb+resource: 'Delete a rear_port from NetBox by numeric id.' It uniquely identifies the action for this specific object type among many sibling delete tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Confirm the exact object — and what will cascade with it — with the user before calling.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and warns against casual use, differentiating it from non-destructive tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses critical behavioral details beyond the annotations: cascade deletion effects (e.g., removing a device removes interfaces, power ports, assigned IPs), irreversibility, and the HTTP 204 response. Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds rich context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: purpose first, then warnings, then response. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the action, consequences, and response. It is complete and leaves no ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'id' is fully documented in the input schema with type, minimum, and description. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a region from NetBox by numeric id,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools by naming the resource type, and the method (by numeric id) is explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description warns that the operation is destructive, irreversible, and cascading, and advises to confirm with the user before calling. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like get_region for verification or when to use this tool versus other actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that NetBox cascades deletes (removing dependent objects), that there is no undo, and that the agent must confirm the exact object and its cascade effects. This is highly valuable and aligns with the destructiveHint annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: it opens with the action, then provides clear warnings and usage guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose and there is no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides complete context: purpose, behavior, warnings, success response (HTTP 204). No gaps remain given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully covers the single parameter 'id' with a clear description. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond reiterating 'by numeric id', which is already in the schema. Baseline score is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (delete), resource (site_group), and method (by numeric id). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from other delete tools in the sibling list, which target different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns that the operation is destructive and irreversible, and instructs the agent to confirm with the user before calling. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear and sufficient for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true), the description details cascade deletes with concrete examples (device removal cascades interfaces, power ports, etc.), states irreversibility, and specifies the HTTP 204 response. This adds significant behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by a warning paragraph and a return value note. Every sentence is informative without extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (destructiveness, cascading, confirmation need) and the response (HTTP 204). It is complete and contextually rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, with a single parameter 'id' already described. The description adds 'by numeric id' in the first sentence, which is redundant. No additional semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Delete a tenant from NetBox by numeric id.' It precisely identifies the target resource (tenant) and distinguishes the tool from other delete tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns of destructive, irreversible actions and cascade deletes, advising confirmation with the user. It implies when to use (only after confirmation) and when not to (without caution), though it does not directly compare with alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the `destructiveHint` annotation, the description elaborates on the cascading deletion behavior in NetBox with specific examples (e.g., device removes interfaces, power ports, IPs) and confirms the HTTP 204 response. This adds significant value for safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise yet comprehensive: it states the purpose, highlights critical warnings, explains behavior, and describes the response—all in a few well-structured sentences. No redundant information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter delete tool with `destructiveHint` and no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, usage warnings, cascade behavior, response format, and prerequisite confirmation step. It is complete and sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers the single parameter (`id`) with a description, achieving 100% coverage. The description restates the parameter's purpose ('by numeric id') but adds no additional semantic value. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete'), the target resource ('virtual_circuit'), and the method ('by numeric id'). This uniquely identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling delete tools targeting other resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns that the operation is destructive and irreversible, and instructs the agent to confirm with the user before calling. It provides clear guidance on when to use (only after confirmation) but does not specify alternatives or when not to use, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the context of sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the destructive annotation by detailing exactly what cascading deletes entail (e.g., deleting a device removes interfaces, IPs, etc.). It emphasizes irreversibility and the need for confirmation, providing rich behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: it starts with the purpose, then provides warnings and return information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple single parameter and the presence of annotations, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, destructive behavior, cascade effects, user confirmation, and return value. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's description of the 'id' parameter. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete'), the resource ('virtual_disk'), and the method ('by numeric id'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from the many sibling tools, including other delete tools for different objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns about the destructive and irreversible nature, explains cascading deletes with examples, and advises confirming with the user. While it doesn't list alternative tools, it provides clear context for when to use this tool cautiously.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond the `destructiveHint: true` annotation by explaining the cascading deletion behavior, providing concrete examples (device, site, manufacturer), noting there is no undo, and describing the HTTP 204 response. This fully informs the agent of the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (four sentences) and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then provides critical warnings and return details. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, required input, behavioral impact, return value, and pre-call verification guidance. It is fully complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full coverage (100%) and includes a description for the `id` parameter. The description adds 'numeric id' but does not provide additional semantic value beyond what the schema already offers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('virtual_machine_type') and specifies the identifier method ('by numeric id'). This differentiates it from other delete tools for different NetBox objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides critical usage guidance: it warns that the operation is destructive, irreversible, and cascading, and instructs the agent to confirm with the user before calling. However, it does not mention alternative actions (e.g., updating vs deleting) or when to use this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes beyond destructiveHint annotation by detailing that NetBox cascades deletes, provides examples of cascades (e.g., deleting a site removes racks, devices), and states HTTP 204 response on success. All behavioral traits are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise and well-structured: first sentence states the operation, second paragraph provides critical warnings and response info. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter, the description covers operation, behavior, cascading effects, and response format. Complete enough for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (id) with 100% schema coverage. The description adds no new information beyond what the schema already provides ('Numeric id of the vlan_group to delete.'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'vlan_group from NetBox by numeric id', distinguishing it from sibling get/create/update operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly warns about destructive and irreversible nature, and advises confirming exact object and cascading effects with user. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or compare to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by detailing NetBox's cascading delete behavior and providing examples (device, site, manufacturer). It also states the HTTP 204 response, adding valuable behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, followed by warnings and return information. No unnecessary words, and critical information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description fully covers the necessary context for a simple delete operation: what it does, destructive nature, cascading effects, confirmation requirement, and expected return. No gaps given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema (integer, minimum 1). The description confirms it is used to identify the policy but does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool deletes a vlan_translation_policy by numeric id, with specific verb ('Delete') and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get, list, create, update, and other delete operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises confirming the exact object and cascading effects with the user before calling, providing clear usage guidance. It does not explicitly list alternative tools but the context of destructive nature implies when to use cautiously.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds valuable behavioral details: cascade deletion examples, irreversibility, and the HTTP 204 No Content success response. This fully discloses the destructive nature beyond what annotations alone provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using a few sentences to state purpose, warnings, and return value. It is front-loaded with the core action, followed by important caveats, and ends with the success response. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to use it (with user confirmation), behavioral warnings (cascade, irreversibility), and the expected return. It is fully complete for the complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a single 'id' parameter already described as 'Numeric id of the vm_interface to delete.' The description reiterates 'by numeric id' but does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a vm_interface from NetBox by numeric id,' providing a specific verb and resource. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_get_vm_interface, netbox_create_vm_interface, and netbox_update_vm_interface by focusing on deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs to 'Confirm the exact object — and what will cascade with it — with the user before calling,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude situations or suggest alternative tools when deletion might not be appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining the cascading deletion behavior with concrete examples (devices, sites, manufacturers) and explicitly states there is no undo. It also notes the HTTP 204 No Content response. This provides rich behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the action in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence adds value: warnings, cascade examples, confirmation requirement, and return behavior. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature and single parameter, the description fully covers what the agent needs: how to call (by id), what happens (cascading delete), what to do before calling (confirm with user), and what response to expect (204). No output schema is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema with the same 'Numeric id of the vrf to delete' that appears in the description. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Delete a vrf from NetBox by numeric id.' It specifies the resource (vrf) and the method (delete by numeric id), distinguishing it from other delete tools for different objects in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for use: it is destructive, irreversible, and cascading. It advises confirming with the user before calling. However, it does not explicitly compare to other VRF tools like update, but the purpose is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds output format details (Markdown/JSON) and nested references in JSON, enhancing transparency without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences plus return description. Front-loaded with primary action, then usage context and output info. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given sibling list and create/update tools, description sufficiently covers when to use this get tool. Return format is explained, and workflow is implied. Complete for its purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers parameters fully. Description adds value by noting that JSON format is useful for chaining tool calls, which aids parameter selection beyond schema basics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single asn_range from NetBox by numeric id' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling list tool by mentioning 'Use after netbox_list_asn_ranges'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (after list or when id is known), but does not explicitly exclude cases where list would be more appropriate, though this is implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey safe read behavior. The description adds value by detailing return format and content ('Markdown detail (default) or JSON with the full NetBox object including nested references'), going beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence earns its place. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and return format. No output schema is needed, and the information is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds guidance by explaining when to use 'json' response_format ('when chaining follow-up tool calls'), providing context beyond schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Get a single circuit_type from NetBox by numeric id,' clearly identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like netbox_list_circuit_types and netbox_create_circuit_type by specifying it retrieves a single object by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises to use it after netbox_list_circuit_types has located the object or when the ID is already known. This provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude other cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying return formats (Markdown or JSON) and that JSON includes 'the full NetBox object including nested references,' which is not in annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with four sentences, each serving a purpose: stating purpose, providing usage context, describing returns, and advising on format. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, good annotations, no output schema), the description covers all needed aspects: what it does, when to use, return value details, and parameter guidance. It is fully complete for this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters. The description adds meaning: it explains the response_format enum and advises using 'json' for chaining follow-up tool calls, which goes beyond the schema's description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single console_port from NetBox by numeric id.' The verb (Get), resource (console_port), and method (by numeric id) are specific. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'netbox_list_console_ports' by instructing to use after listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit context: 'Use after netbox_list_console_ports has located the object, or when you already have the id.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but for a simple get operation, this guidance is clear and sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already note read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that the response includes nested references and supports markdown/json format. No contradictions. Provides additional behavioral insight without redundancy.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences plus a bullet. Front-loaded with primary purpose. Every sentence adds genuine value with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description explains return format (markdown/json) and content (full object with nested references). Sufficient for a simple get tool with rich sibling context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters (100% coverage). Description reinforces 'numeric id' and adds guidance on response_format for chaining tool calls, going beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it retrieves a single console_port_template by numeric id. Distinguishes from list tool and other get tools. Verb+resource is specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises using after netbox_list_console_port_templates or when id is known. Implicitly excludes usage without id. Could be more explicit about when not to use, but sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds return format details (Markdown or JSON) and mentions nested references. Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description adds moderate behavioral context beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Five concise lines in three short blocks, front-loaded with purpose and usage. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a simple get tool: covers purpose, usage, parameters, return format. No output schema exists, but description sufficiently describes the outcome.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description does not add significant new meaning beyond summarizing the response format use case.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single contact from NetBox by numeric id,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like netbox_list_contacts (which lists many) and netbox_create_contact.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises use after netbox_list_contacts or when the id is known, providing clear when-to-use guidance. Implicitly excludes use when id is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes return formats (markdown or JSON) and that JSON includes nested references, adding behavioral context beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations. No mention of error conditions, but annotations cover safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: two sentences for purpose and usage, one for returns. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and return format completely. No gaps given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds guidance for the response_format parameter ('Use json when chaining follow-up tool calls'), adding practical semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get), resource (single contact_group), and identifier (numeric id). It distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool by specifying retrieval of a single object by id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises use after netbox_list_contact_groups has located the object or when the id is already known, providing clear context. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds behavior context by specifying return format options ('Markdown detail (default) or JSON with the full NetBox object including nested references') and recommending JSON for chaining. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (4 sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second sentence guides usage, subsequent sentences detail return format. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose, usage workflow, and return format. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. No output schema exists, but the description adequately describes what is returned. No missing critical information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with adequate descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by guiding when to use 'json' response_format ('Use 'json' when chaining follow-up tool calls'), which aids in tool composition beyond basic schema info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a single device_bay by numeric id ('Get a single device_bay from NetBox by numeric id.'). This uniquely identifies its function among siblings like netbox_list_device_bays, netbox_create_device_bay, netbox_update_device_bay, and netbox_delete_device_bay.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance: 'Use after netbox_list_device_bays has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This establishes a clear workflow. It does not include when-not-to-use or explicit alternatives, which are obvious given it is a retrieval tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations (which already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) by detailing the return format: 'Markdown detail (default) or JSON with the full NetBox object including nested references.' This informs the agent about output options.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences: purpose, usage guidance, return format. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-object retrieval tool, the description covers what the tool does (get by id), when to use it (after list or with known id), and what it returns (markdown/json with nested refs). No output schema needed; description suffices.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds context: 'numeric id' and guidance on when to use 'json' vs 'markdown' (e.g., 'Use json when chaining follow-up tool calls'). This supplements the schema's parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single device_type from NetBox by numeric id', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like netbox_list_device_types (list multiple) and netbox_create_device_type (create).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies when to use: 'Use after netbox_list_device_types has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This provides clear context and implies alternatives, but does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., not for creation).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the output format (Markdown or JSON) and noting that JSON includes nested references. This is useful but could be enhanced with error handling or field details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with three sentences: purpose, usage guideline, and return format. Every sentence serves a clear purpose without redundancy, making it easy for agents to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get operation with full schema and annotation coverage, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. No gaps remain, as the agent can infer error handling from standard NetBox behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema descriptions, though it reinforces the output format for response_format. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a single fhrp_group_assignment by numeric ID, using the verb 'get' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from sibling list, create, and update tools by emphasizing single object retrieval and the prerequisite of having the ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to use after netbox_list_fhrp_group_assignments or when the ID is already known, providing clear context for when to employ this tool versus alternatives. This prevents misuse when a list or search is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark as read-only and idempotent. Description adds expected output format (Markdown vs JSON) and that it includes nested references, providing helpful context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences plus a Returns line, with clear structure and no redundant information. Front-loaded with key action and object.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description sufficiently explains what is returned (full object with nested references). Includes usage context (prerequisite) and format options. Complete for a simple get tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters with descriptions. Description adds guidance on response_format ('use json when chaining follow-up tool calls'), adding value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool gets a single inventory_item_role by numeric id, with specific verb and resource. Differentiates from other 'get' tools by naming the specific object type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use: after netbox_list_inventory_item_roles has located the object, or when already have the id. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but that is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the output format (Markdown or JSON with full nested references) and suggests using JSON for chaining, which goes beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: four sentences that front-load the purpose and efficiently convey usage and output details without any waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (read-only, 2 params), annotations are rich, schema coverage is complete, and the description covers usage context and output format, it is fully complete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the default behavior for response_format and when to use each format, guiding the agent's choice.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single inventory_item_type from NetBox by numeric id.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_list_inventory_item_types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit when-to-use context: 'Use after netbox_list_inventory_item_types has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds value by specifying output formats (markdown default, JSON) and hinting at chaining with 'Use ''json'' when chaining follow-up tool calls.' No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences front-load the key information: action, usage, and output. No superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get tool with two well-described parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, and output options. No output schema exists, so description's mention of contents is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context: 'Use after netbox_list_modules' for id parameter, and for response_format explains when to use json. This provides useful guidance beyond schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets a single module by numeric id, distinguishing it from sibling tools like netbox_get_device. It specifies the action (get), resource (module), and identifier (id).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use after netbox_list_modules has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool. It implies not to use it without an id, but does not explicitly list alternatives beyond netbox_list_modules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe, read-only behavior. The description adds that the tool returns 'Markdown detail (default) or JSON with the full NetBox object including nested references,' which is useful extra context. It does not contradict annotations and adds value, though error handling (e.g., if id not found) is not mentioned, but not critical given annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidance, return format. Highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 'get' tool with rich annotations (safety, idempotency) and complete schema coverage, the description covers the return format and usage flow. No output schema exists, but the description adequately describes the return. Complete given tool complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters. The description adds marginal value by specifying 'numeric id' and advising when to use 'json' for chaining, but does not significantly expand beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('module_bay'), and the required input ('numeric id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_list_module_bays, netbox_create_module_bay, and netbox_update_module_bay, fulfilling the criteria for a specific verb+resource with sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use after netbox_list_module_bays has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This provides clear context and implicitly excludes other tools for different purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the return format (Markdown or JSON with nested references), which is beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and return format. No extraneous information; each sentence serves a distinct purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id tool, the description covers the key aspects: id parameter, usage sequence, and return formats. Annotations confirm safety. No output schema needed as return is described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description elaborates on the response_format parameter, advising to use 'json' when chaining follow-up tool calls, which adds practical context beyond the schema's description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single power_outlet from NetBox by numeric id', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list, create, update, and delete by clarifying this is a retrieval operation for a single object.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly recommends using this tool after netbox_list_power_outlets has located the object or when the id is already known. This provides clear context on when to invoke this tool, though it does not mention alternative tools for the same purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the return format ('Markdown detail (default) or JSON with the full NetBox object including nested references'), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with clear front-loading: first sentence states purpose, second gives usage direction, third explains output. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (get by ID with optional format), the description covers all needed context: what it does, when to use it, and what output to expect. Annotations handle safety aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and already describes both parameters (id and response_format). The description does not add new meaning beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get a single power_outlet_template from NetBox by numeric id'. The verb 'Get' and resource 'power_outlet_template' are specific. It distinguishes from the list sibling tool by specifying that it retrieves a single object by numeric id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: after netbox_list_power_outlet_templates has located the object or when you already have the id. Provides clear context but does not mention when not to use or list alternative tools, though the guidance is sufficient for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds value by specifying return formats (markdown vs JSON) and mentioning 'full NetBox object including nested references' – useful context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four focused sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, then return details. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description clearly states return types and content. Use case is fully covered: when to use, what to expect, and output format options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% – both parameters are well-described in the schema. The description confirms 'by numeric id' but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single power_panel from NetBox by numeric id' – a specific verb and resource. It naturally distinguishes from sibling list/create/update tools by emphasizing retrieval by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Use after netbox_list_power_panels has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This tells the agent when to invoke and when not to.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. The description adds value by specifying return formats (Markdown or JSON with nested references) and that it returns the full object. No contradictions. A 4 reflects that the description provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: three sentences covering purpose, usage, and return format. No unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of a get-by-id operation, the description is complete. It specifies what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns (Markdown or JSON with nested references). With good annotations and no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the 'id' parameter is numeric and that 'response_format' controls output (markdown for human, json for chaining). This goes beyond what the schema provides, justifying a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single power_port_template from NetBox by numeric id.' This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list/create/update/delete by focusing on retrieval by id. It also provides usage context (after list or when you have id).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use after netbox_list_power_port_templates has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This gives clear context for when to use this tool. It also hints at response_format usage for chaining, but does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description details the return format: 'Markdown detail (default) or JSON with the full NetBox object including nested references.' This adds value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences. First defines purpose, second gives usage hint, third describes output. No unnecessary words; information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given its simplicity (get by id), the description fully covers usage, parameters, and output. Annotations and schema already provide safety and parameter details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the response_format parameter options and when to use JSON ('when chaining follow-up tool calls'), which aids selection.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get a single rack_role') and the method ('by numeric id'). It uniquely identifies the tool from siblings like netbox_list_rack_roles and netbox_create_rack_role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit context: 'Use after netbox_list_rack_roles has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This guides agents on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds return format details (markdown or JSON with nested references), enhancing transparency beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences covering action, usage context, and return format. No filler; each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains operation, when to use, and what to expect (markdown or JSON with nested refs). Complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds a useful tip for response_format ('Use json when chaining follow-up tool calls'), providing extra guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets a single rear_port by numeric id, distinguishing it from sibling tools like netbox_list_rear_ports (list) and netbox_create_rear_port (create).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises using after netbox_list_rear_ports or when ID is known, providing clear context. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the id requirement implies it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by specifying the return format (Markdown or JSON) and that it includes nested references. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the rest add necessary context without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with good schema and annotations, the description provides all needed context: usage sequence, return format, and that it includes nested references. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all parameters (id and response_format) with descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining the response_format parameter's use for follow-up tool calls, which is beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets a single rear_port_template by numeric id, and distinguishes it from list, create, update, and delete siblings. The verb 'Get' and resource 'rear_port_template' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly recommends use after netbox_list_rear_port_templates or when the id is already known. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is clear for typical workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, etc. The description adds the return format (Markdown/JSON) and mentions nested references in JSON, which is useful beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a simple retrieval tool: explains what, when, how to use, and output options. No missing details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds little beyond schema; 'numeric id' matches schema but no extra semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it retrieves a single route_target by numeric id, distinguishing it from list operations like netbox_list_route_targets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to use after netbox_list_route_targets or when id is known, and mentions the response_format option for chaining.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it returns Markdown or JSON full object, providing useful output format details beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each purposeful: purpose, usage guidance, return format. No fluff, front-loaded with primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With two parameters fully described in schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers necessary context: how to use, when to use, and what to expect in return. No gaps for this simple retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds extra guidance: 'Use json when chaining follow-up tool calls', which adds value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single service from NetBox by numeric id', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like netbox_list_services, netbox_create_service, and netbox_delete_service by specifying retrieval by id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to use after netbox_list_services or when already having the id. It also mentions the response_format parameter for chaining. While no exclusions are given, the context is clear for this read-only tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that the tool returns Markdown or JSON with the full object including nested references, which is helpful behavioral information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences: purpose, usage hint, output description. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params), annotations, and sibling tools, the description fully covers purpose, usage context, and output format. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the output format including 'nested references', going beyond the schema's description. This is valuable additional information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single site from NetBox by numeric id.' It specifies the resource (site) and action (get), and distinguishes from sibling netbox_list_sites which lists multiple sites.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises using this tool after netbox_list_sites has located the object, or when the id is already known. This provides clear context for when to use this tool, though it does not exhaustively list all alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by stating the output formats (Markdown or JSON) and that it returns the full NetBox object with nested references. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences: purpose, usage, output. No unnecessary words, well-structured and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema), the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage context, and output format. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context about when to use JSON format for chaining, which is helpful beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single supplier from NetBox by numeric id.', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (list, create, update, delete) by specifying the retrieval operation and the need for an id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use after netbox_list_suppliers has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds return format details (Markdown or JSON) and mentions nested references, providing useful context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: purpose, usage, return info. No wasted words, well front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id tool, the description covers retrieval, usage flow, and output. Siblings are similar but the description provides enough context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and description adds little beyond schema. Parameters are well-defined in schema; description only implies id usage and response format choice.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single virtual_disk from NetBox by numeric id', with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling list tool by advising 'Use after netbox_list_virtual_disks has located the object'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use: after list or when id is known, and implicitly when not to use (if no id). It names the sibling tool netbox_list_virtual_disks as the alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds details about return formats (Markdown default, JSON option) beyond the annotations which already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the main purpose, and no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the annotations and schema coverage, the description provides complete context: it explains when to use, what parameters are needed, and what the return options are. No output schema exists but the description addresses it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of response_format ('Use json when chaining follow-up tool calls'), which is not in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get a single virtual_machine from NetBox by numeric id', which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool netbox_list_virtual_machines that is used for listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly guides when to use: 'Use after netbox_list_virtual_machines has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This provides clear context on when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the tool is clearly safe. The description adds value by detailing the return format (Markdown or JSON) and noting nested references in JSON output, beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, and return format. No redundant information, front-loaded with essential details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs: how to get the object, when to use it, and what output to expect. No missing information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds guidance on the response_format parameter, recommending 'json' for chaining, which provides meaningful context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('vlan_translation_rule'), and the identifier ('by numeric id'). It also provides context for when to use it (after list or when id is known), distinguishing it from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises using after netbox_list_vlan_translation_rules or when id is known. Provides clear context for invocation, though does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent hints. Description adds that it aggregates top hits and dispatches queries in parallel. No contradictions, and adds useful context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Excellent structure: one-line purpose, usage guidance, then Args list, then Returns. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only search tool with 4 parameters all documented, description includes return format guidance and follow-up suggestions. Annotations provide safety profile. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description's Args section adds context like default of 5 for limit_per_resource and 'Use json when chaining follow-up tool calls' for response_format. Provides helpful nuance but schema already does heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Fuzzy search across sites, racks, devices, interfaces, prefixes, IPs, VLANs, and VRFs' and distinguishes from sibling get/list tools by being a global cross-resource search. It also gives specific use cases like unknown object type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'when the user gives a name, hostname, partial identifier... and you don't know which object type they mean.' It also suggests follow-up with netbox_get_<resource>. Could mention when not to use, but otherwise strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds pagination behavior (limit, offset, auto-truncation, has_more/next_offset) and return format (Markdown default, JSON with structure). No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, common patterns, pagination, filters, returns. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with 9 parameters, pagination, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: return format, pagination metadata, filtering, and patterns. It is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While some parameters (name, rir_id) have minimal description, the description adds context for filters (combining q with resource-specific filters), pagination parameters, and response_format. Schema coverage is 78% and description compensates with usage patterns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List ranges of ASNs from NetBox' and distinguishes from the sibling tool netbox_get_asn_range for single-item lookup. The verb 'list' and resource 'ASN ranges' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides common patterns like discovery (no filters), lookup by id (redirects to netbox_get_asn_range), and narrow scanning with filters. Pagination guidance is given. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the alternatives are clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as pagination behavior (limit/max, auto-truncation), response format options (Markdown vs JSON), and that large responses auto-truncate. No contradictions. Adds significant value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, common patterns, pagination, filters, returns). Every sentence is informative and earns its place. No redundancies or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers pagination, filtering, and response format. It provides the JSON shape (total, count, items, etc.). However, without an output schema, it does not describe the fields inside each item (e.g., what a circuit group assignment contains). This is a gap for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (88%). The description adds value by explaining common patterns (discovery, lookup, narrow scan) and provides guidance on response_format ('Use json when chaining follow-up tool calls'). It reiterates some schema info but adds contextual usage tips.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List circuit group memberships from NetBox.' It distinguishes between discovery (no filters), lookup by ID (recommending netbox_get_circuit_group_assignment), and narrow scan (using filters). This is a specific verb+resource with differentiation from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Lookup by id: use netbox_get_circuit_group_assignment instead when you already have an id.' Also explains pagination usage and narrowing scans. Clear guidance without ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable details about pagination behavior (auto-truncation, has_more, next_offset) and return formats, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, patterns, pagination, filters, returns). Each sentence serves a purpose; no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description details the return shape (JSON fields) and covers pagination, filters, and formatting options. It is comprehensive for a list tool with many parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 58%; description groups filters into resource-specific and universal, and explains pagination parameters. However, it merely lists some parameters (device_id, device, name, etc.) without adding meaning, relying on the schema for those.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists patch-panel front ports from NetBox and outlines specific patterns (discovery, lookup by id with sibling reference, narrow scan), effectively distinguishing from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'use netbox_get_front_port instead when you already have an id'), and provides context for pagination, filtering, and common patterns.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing pagination behavior (default/max limit, offset, next_offset), auto-truncation for large lists, and response format options (markdown/json). This goes beyond annotations, making behavior clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with clear sections: purpose, common patterns, pagination, filters, and returns. Each sentence serves a purpose, no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action and then provides structured details, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 12 parameters (all optional) and no output schema. The description covers all essential aspects: purpose, filters, pagination, return format (including shape for JSON), and common usage patterns. It is comprehensive enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds structure by grouping filters into 'resource-specific' and 'universal' categories, explains pagination parameters with practical details (max 1000, default 50), and describes the response_format parameter's purpose. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists inventory item types/catalog models from NetBox, with specific verb 'list' and resource 'inventory item types'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'netbox_get_inventory_item_type' for lookup by id, and describes common patterns like discovery and narrow scan, covering all key aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage patterns: discovery (no filters), lookup by id (referring to get tool), and narrow scan (using filters). It also explains pagination details. While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, the patterns imply appropriate contexts, and it names an alternative (get tool) for specific lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: details about pagination (limit, offset, has_more, next_offset), auto-truncation for large lists, and return format options. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections and clear first sentence. Although lengthy, the information is organized and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, but some redundancy exists in listing filter names without new info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 14 parameters, no output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose, pagination, filtration types, and return format. Lacks detailed explanation of each filter's semantics, but overall adequate for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists parameter names but adds little semantic meaning beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 50%, and the description does not clarify filter behavior (e.g., start_address exact match or prefix? status enum meaning). Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides some descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a clear verb+resource: 'List IP ranges (start/end address pairs) from NetBox.' It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool netbox_get_ip_range, saying to use that instead when an id is available.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage patterns: discovery (no filters), lookup by id (with alternative), and narrow scan (combining filters). It also explains pagination mechanics and when to use json vs markdown format.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds pagination behavior (limit, offset, has_more), auto-truncation, and format details. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections (Common patterns, Pagination, Filters). Some redundancy, but front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more concise but remains easy to navigate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, usage, filters, pagination, and return format. No output schema, but description explains Markdown vs JSON shape. Adequate for a list tool with 9 parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is high (78%), but description adds value by categorizing filters (resource-specific vs universal) and clarifying fuzzy search. Fills gaps for parameters like provider_id and account that have no schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'List provider billing accounts from NetBox' and distinguishes from netbox_get_provider_account for id-based lookup. Provides explicit use patterns like 'Discovery', 'Lookup by id', and 'Narrow scan'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use (discovery, narrow scan) and when not to (use netbox_get_provider_account for known id). Mentions alternatives and provides context for pagination.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds pagination details (limit, offset, has_more, next_offset), auto-truncation, and response format options, providing valuable context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (common patterns, pagination, filters, returns) and is front-loaded. It is fairly long but every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure (markdown or JSON shape). It covers pagination, filtering, and common patterns adequately for an 11-parameter non-mandatory tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, and the description organizes parameters into 'Resource-specific filters' and 'Universal filters', adding semantic grouping. It also explains the response_format parameter for chaining, genuinely augmenting the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list), resource (purchases), and context (netbox-inventory plugin). It differentiates from sibling netbox_get_purchase by advising to use that tool when an id is already known.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description outlines common patterns (discovery, lookup by id, narrow scan) and pagination usage. While it does not explicitly list when not to use, the contrast with netbox_get_purchase is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare safety (readOnly, idempotent). The description adds key behavioral details: pagination with limit/offset, auto-truncation of large lists, and return format options. This goes beyond annotations, although it doesn't describe all edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Overview, Common patterns, Pagination, Filters, Returns). Each sentence serves a purpose, no redundancy. Length is appropriate for the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description explains the return format (Markdown or JSON with shape). It covers all parameters, pagination behavior, and usage patterns. For a list tool with this complexity, it is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 88%, so baseline is 3. The description groups filters into 'Universal' and 'Resource-specific' and briefly mentions each, but does not add significant detail beyond the schema descriptions. The grouping adds some structure, but not enough to increase score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List virtual circuit terminations from NetBox' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'netbox_get_virtual_circuit_termination' for single lookups, and outlines common patterns like discovery and narrow scan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides when to use: discovery with no filters, lookup by id via get tool, narrow scan with filters. Also covers pagination mechanics and output format selection, guiding the agent on correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description goes beyond by specifying pagination behavior (auto-truncation, has_more, next_offset) and return format details. This adds transparency beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-organized with sections for purpose, pagination, filters, and returns. Front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence is informative and necessary. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description fully defines the response shape including fields like total, count, offset, limit, items, has_more, next_offset. Covers pagination, filters, and return format options. Complete for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 73%, close to the high threshold. The description groups parameters into resource-specific and universal filters, and provides usage examples, but does not add substantial semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Score at baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'groupings of VLANs (enforce vid uniqueness within a scope) from NetBox.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like netbox_get_vlan_group by recommending using that tool for single id lookups, and from netbox_list_vlans by specifying it lists VLAN groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit common patterns: discovery with no filters, lookup by id (recommends alternative tool), and narrow scan with filters. Also details pagination usage with limit/offset and next_offset, giving clear when-to-use and how-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate safety. Description adds pagination details (limit, offset, has_more, next_offset), auto-truncation behavior, and response format options. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with sections and clear language. Efficient but slightly lengthy due to comprehensive details. No fluff, but could be more compact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers usage patterns, pagination, filtering, response format, and auto-truncation. Missing description for policy_id filter, but overall comprehensive for a list tool with 8 parameters and no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (88%), so baseline 3. Description adds overall usage patterns but does not significantly augment parameter meanings beyond schema. The policy_id filter is listed but left undescribed (empty). Pagination terms (has_more, next_offset) are explained, which adds value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List VLAN translation rules from NetBox' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like netbox_get_vlan_translation_rule (for lookup by id) and netbox_create/update/delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit common patterns: Discovery (no filters), Lookup by id (use alternative tool), Narrow scan (combine filters). Also explains pagination and when to use 'json' format for chaining. Includes explicit alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description reveals PATCH semantics, partial update behavior, and return format (Markdown/JSON). Annotations already indicate idempotent and destructive; description adds context beyond annotations without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise and well-structured: first line states purpose, second gives usage guidance, third describes return options. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema, description covers all essential aspects: update semantics, required id, optional fields, and response format. Adequate for correct tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 57% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds value by explaining that omitted fields remain unchanged and the id is required. Response_format parameter gets extra clarification on when to use JSON vs Markdown.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action (Update) and resource (virtual_disk) with explicit PATCH semantics. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_virtual_disk and get_virtual_disk.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to supply numeric 'id' and only fields to change, emphasizing omitting fields leaves them unchanged. Could mention when not to use, but sufficient for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint: true, the description elaborates on cascading deletes with concrete examples (e.g., deleting a device removes interfaces), states there is no undo, and describes the return behavior (HTTP 204). No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: first sentence states the action, followed by a concise warning paragraph and then the return information. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds value, though some redundancy in the warning examples could be trimmed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description fully covers the purpose, behavior, usage precautions, and expected result. Nothing important is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter (id) has 100% schema coverage. The description merely restates it as 'numeric id', adding no extra semantics beyond the schema's description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action ('Delete a circuit_termination') and the resource (NetBox by numeric id). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like netbox_create_circuit_termination and netbox_update_circuit_termination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description warns that the operation is destructive and irreversible, advises confirming the exact object and cascade effects with the user before calling, and notes the HTTP 204 success response. This provides clear when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations already set destructiveHint=true, the description adds significant value by detailing cascade behavior with concrete examples, emphasizing irreversibility, and specifying HTTP 204 success response. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is well-structured: begins with a clear action statement, then lists warnings and success info. It is reasonably concise for a destructive tool, though could be slightly shorter without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering destructiveness, the description is complete: it identifies the object, explains cascading, requires user confirmation, and describes the response. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers the single required parameter 'id' with 100% coverage (type, minimum, description). Description does not add to parameter semantics beyond what schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Delete a contact_role from NetBox by numeric id,' clearly specifying the action, resource, and input. It differentiates from sibling tools like get/create/update_contact_role by its verb and context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit guidance: warns of destructive and irreversible nature, explains cascading deletes, and instructs to confirm object and cascade effects with user before calling. No alternatives mentioned but context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: cascade behavior with specific examples (e.g., deleting a device removes its interfaces), emphasis on irreversibility, and the HTTP 204 response. This significantly enhances transparency beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, well-structured, and front-loaded. It starts with the action, then immediately addresses the most critical behavioral aspects (destructive, irreversible, cascade). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to use it safely, cascade effects, and the return value. It does not mention error handling or missing id scenarios, but those are implicit. Overall, it is adequately complete for a destructive tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter (id) is well-documented in the schema with a description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, but schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete a inventory_item from NetBox by numeric id') and distinguishes it from other tools via the specific object type. The verb 'delete' is precise, and the resource is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns that the operation is DESTRUCTIVE and IRREVERSIBLE, describes cascade deletion effects with concrete examples, and instructs the agent to confirm with the user before proceeding. This provides strong guidance on when to use (only after careful confirmation) and when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by detailing the cascade delete behavior with concrete examples (e.g., deleting a device removes its interfaces, power ports). It also notes the HTTP 204 response, providing transparency about the operation's effects and final state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured, starting with the core action followed by critical warnings. While it contains necessary detail, it is slightly verbose but still efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, required parameter, cascade consequences, user confirmation need, and response format. No gaps are evident.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'id' is fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage). The description restates 'numeric id' without adding extra semantic context, so it adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete a platform from NetBox by numeric id') and the resource (platform), directly supporting selection among sibling delete tools. The verb 'Delete' and resource 'platform' are explicit and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool, warning of destructive nature and cascading deletes, and instructing to confirm with the user before calling. It explicitly says 'There is no undo' and advises verification, covering both usage and precautions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint: true. The description goes beyond by explaining cascade behavior (e.g., deleting a device removes its interfaces, etc.) and the HTTP 204 response, adding valuable context not in annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is clear and well-structured, starting with the action and then providing important warnings. It is slightly longer due to cascade examples but each sentence adds value. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input (one id) and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: deletion behavior, cascade effects, and response format. It is complete for an agent to understand the tool's impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single 'id' parameter. The description does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema's 'Numeric id of the power_feed to delete.' Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a power_feed from NetBox by numeric id.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools include many other delete tools, so it distinguishes by object type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns 'DESTRUCTIVE and IRREVERSIBLE' and details NetBox's cascading delete behavior. It advises confirming the exact object and cascade effects with the user before calling, providing clear when-to-use and caution guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explains cascading deletes in detail, provides concrete examples (deleting a device removes its interfaces, etc.), and states 'no undo.' It also mentions the HTTP 204 response. This fully discloses behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: an initial concise purpose, a cautionary block with cascading examples, and a note on return value. The examples, while detailed, are essential for understanding the destructive impact. Slightly longer than necessary but justified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter) and absence of output schema, the description covers all key aspects: purpose, required id, destructive nature, cascading effects, and return value. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'by numeric id' reinforces the parameter but adds no significant new meaning beyond the schema's 'Numeric id of the site to delete.'
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a site from NetBox by numeric id,' specifying the verb and resource. It easily distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_get_site, netbox_create_site, and netbox_update_site, which are non-destructive or create/update operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly warns 'DESTRUCTIVE and IRREVERSIBLE' and advises 'Confirm the exact object — and what will cascade with it — with the user before calling.' This tells the agent when to use (only after user confirmation) and when not to (without confirmation). The cascading delete examples also help the agent understand the broader impact.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that output can be Markdown or JSON including nested references, enhancing transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: two sentences plus return description. No unnecessary words, well structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description explains return format and nested references sufficiently. Simple tool with good annotations, so complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage 100%. Description adds practical guidance on response_format ('use JSON for chaining'), going beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'cluster_type' by numeric ID. Differentiates from sibling tools like list, create, update, delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to use after netbox_list_cluster_types has located the object or when id is known, providing clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint. Description adds return format info (Markdown default vs JSON with nested references), which is useful beyond annotations. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four focused sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, then return details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description covers return formats and mentions nested references. For a read-only get tool with strong annotations, this is adequate and leaves minimal gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters (id, response_format) at 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining response_format usage ('Use json when chaining follow-up tool calls'), providing context beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single front_port_template from NetBox by numeric id', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like netbox_list_front_port_templates by specifying singular retrieval and numeric id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states to use after netbox_list_front_port_templates has located the object, or when id is known. Also mentions response_format options, guiding when to use 'json' for chaining follow-up calls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by detailing the return format (Markdown by default or JSON with full object including nested references), which goes beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and followed by a usage tip and return info. Every sentence adds value without repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get tool with 2 parameters, the description adequately covers the operation. It lacks error handling details, but the output format description and usage guidance are sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema documents both parameters. The description adds extra context for response_format, advising to use 'json' when chaining follow-up tool calls, which adds value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'inventory_item', and the method 'by numeric id'. It distinguishes from the list variant by specifying 'single' and referencing the list tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says to use after netbox_list_inventory_items has located the object or when the id is already known. This provides clear when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying the return format (Markdown or JSON) and that it includes 'the full NetBox object including nested references.' This goes beyond annotations, though no additional safety or error details are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and return information. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return format adequately. It is not exhaustive (no error handling), but given the complexity and annotations, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual guidance for the response_format parameter: 'Use "json" when chaining follow-up tool calls.' This helps the agent choose appropriately, justifying a higher score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Get a single module_bay_template from NetBox by numeric id.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'module_bay_template'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like netbox_list_module_bay_templates, netbox_create_module_bay_template, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use after netbox_list_module_bay_templates has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives, making the choice clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds that the tool returns Markdown or JSON, and mentions nested references. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. Each sentence adds essential information: action, usage context, and output format specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (GET by id, 2 params), the description is largely complete. It mentions output formats and nested references, though could be slightly more specific about the structure of the JSON response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers both parameters (100%). Description adds value by explaining the response_format parameter's purpose for chaining follow-up tool calls, beyond the schema enum.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single module_type from NetBox by numeric id.' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from the sibling tool 'netbox_list_module_types' which lists multiple objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly says 'Use after netbox_list_module_types has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This provides clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by detailing the return format (Markdown or JSON with nested references), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: purpose, usage, return format. Front-loaded with essential information, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and output format. It doesn't discuss error handling or authentication, but those are standard for such tools. Overall, sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'id' parameter as numeric and adds guidance for response_format: 'Use json when chaining follow-up tool calls', providing practical semantics beyond the enum description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single rack from NetBox by numeric id', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_list_racks (list) and netbox_get_rack_role (different resource), leaving no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit guidance: 'Use after netbox_list_racks has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives, providing clear context and avoiding misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent. Description adds output format details and chaining use case beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool, annotations cover safety, schema covers params. Description explains use and output format. No output schema but mentions return types.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already describes both parameters (100% coverage). Description adds context: default response_format and 'json' for chaining.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Get' with specific resource 'rack_reservation' by numeric id. Distinct from siblings (list, create, update, delete).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: after list or when id is known. Also guides output format choice for chaining.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint already provided, description adds pagination behavior (auto-truncation, next_offset) and output format details. Does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with sections for pagination, resource-specific filters, universal filters, and returns. Front-loaded with purpose. Some repetition of parameter details already in schema, but necessary for clarity given 26 parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Comprehensive for a list tool: covers pagination, all filtering options, output format, and alternative tool usage. No output schema needed as return shape is described. No gaps given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining pagination parameters, default statuses, and response_format usage for chaining. Some repetition but overall enhanced semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it lists hardware inventory assets using a specific plugin. Distinguishes from sibling tool netbox_get_asset for single asset lookup via explicit 'use netbox_get_asset instead' guidance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit patterns: discovery (no filters), lookup by id (directs to sibling), narrow scan (combine filters). Also explains pagination and when to use markdown vs json output.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds substantial behavioral context: pagination with limit/offset/has_more/next_offset, auto-truncation for large lists, and response shape (total, count, items). No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-organized: short opening, common patterns, pagination details, grouped filters, return format. Every sentence adds value without repetition. Efficient use of bullet points.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers pagination mechanics, all filters, response format options, and usage patterns. Minor omission: no mention of default ordering or sort criteria. Still, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 70% with some params described only by schema. Description groups filters into resource-specific (device_type_id, name, name__ic) and universal (q, tag, created_after/before) but does not add descriptions for the three resource-specific params beyond their names. Universal filters are well-described. Baseline 3 is appropriate as description adds structure but lacks full detail for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'List console server port templates from NetBox', a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from the sibling get tool by advising use of netbox_get_console_server_port_template when an id is known. Common patterns (discovery, lookup, narrow scan) further clarify purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly recommends using the get tool for known IDs and describes when to use no filters (discovery) vs. combining q with filters (narrow scan). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. Description adds pagination details (limit, offset, has_more, next_offset, auto-truncation) and response shape, which are critical for correct usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-organized with clear sections: purpose, common patterns, pagination, filters, return format. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers pagination, filtering, response shape, and usage patterns. Lacks detailed field descriptions for items, but for a list tool with no output schema, this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 78%, so baseline is 3. Description lists resource-specific filters (contact_id, role_id) but without additional context beyond schema. Pagination parameters are explained, but overall value added over schema is moderate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'List assignments of contacts to objects from NetBox' with clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling netbox_get_contact_assignment by advising use of that tool for id lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly specifies when to use this tool (discovery, narrow scan) and when to use netbox_get_contact_assignment instead. Provides common patterns and clear guidance on pagination.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds pagination details (limit, offset, next_offset, auto-truncation), response format choices, and return shape. No rate limits or auth stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise and well-organized: purpose, supported features, common patterns, pagination, filters, return format. Each sentence is informative; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers pagination, filtering, response shape, and format options. No output schema, but describes JSON shape adequately. Lacks details on fields within items, which is a minor gap given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 70% schema coverage, description groups filters into 'Resource-specific' and 'Universal', explains their purpose in context (e.g., fuzzy search with 'q'), and adds usage patterns. Missing descriptions for name, slug, parent_id are compensated by the description's examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (list), resource (contact groups), and that they are nestable. It distinguishes from the sibling netbox_get_contact_group for single-record lookups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides common patterns: discovery with no filters, lookup by id (referencing alternative tool), and narrow scan with filters. Also explains pagination usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description adds value by detailing pagination behavior (limit, offset, auto-truncation, has_more) and response format options. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-organized with sections for patterns, pagination, filters, and returns. Each sentence adds value. Could slightly shorten filter descriptions, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return format (markdown or JSON shape with pagination fields). Covers all filters, pagination details, and differentiates from get tool. Complete for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by grouping filters into 'Resource-specific' and 'Universal' categories and explaining common use (e.g., 'q' for fuzzy text). However, it largely reiterates schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'List device models (combinations of manufacturer + model) from NetBox'. Differentiates from sibling tools like netbox_get_device_type and netbox_create_device_type by explicitly recommending netbox_get_device_type for lookup by id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit common patterns: Discovery (no filters), Lookup by id (suggests alternative tool), Narrow scan (combine filters). Also explains pagination and auto-truncation, guiding the agent on when to paginate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds crucial behavioral details: pagination mechanism (limit, offset, has_more, next_offset), auto-truncation for large lists, and return format options. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Common patterns, Pagination, Filters, Returns). It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While thorough, it remains focused and avoids redundancy, earning a score above average.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, but the description fully compensates: it describes the return values for both Markdown and JSON formats, including the pagination fields (total, count, offset, limit, items, has_more, next_offset). It also explains auto-truncation behavior, making the tool's behavior predictable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all 13 parameters documented). The description adds value by grouping parameters into 'Resource-specific filters' and 'Universal filters', explaining usage patterns (e.g., fuzzy search with q), and clarifying pagination parameters and response_format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List device power inlets (PSU inlets) from NetBox.', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool netbox_get_power_port by advising to use that when an ID is already known.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description outlines common patterns: discovery (no filters), lookup by ID (redirect to netbox_get_power_port), and narrow scanning with filters. It does not explicitly say when not to use the tool, but the alternative is clearly named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details like pagination auto-truncation and response structure, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with sections for patterns, pagination, filters, and returns. Front-loaded with main purpose. Slightly verbose in repeating universal filter details already in schema, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given annotations covering read-only and idempotent nature, the description fully covers pagination, filtering options, and return formats (Markdown summary or JSON shape). No output schema, but description adequately explains response shape.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 70% schema coverage, the description adds context for parameters like rack_id, user_id, tenant_id (though with minimal detail) and explains universal filters (q, tag, created filters) and response_format. This provides added meaning despite some schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List reserved units within a rack from NetBox.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_get_rack_reservation (single lookup) and netbox_create_rack_reservation/write operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly describes common patterns: discovery with no filters, lookup by id (recommending get instead), and narrow scan combining q with resource-specific filters. Also details pagination behavior and response format.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical behavioral details: pagination with limit/offset and auto-truncation, response shape (has_more, next_offset), and output format options (markdown vs JSON). No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a concise opening, then sections for common patterns, pagination, filters, and returns. Every sentence adds value. Slightly lengthy due to comprehensive filter listing, but efficiently organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 14 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all parameters, pagination behavior, response formats, and common use patterns. It addresses edge cases like auto-truncation and provides clear guidance for chaining follow-up calls. Very complete for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description groups filters into resource-specific and universal categories, explains the fuzzy search 'q' and AND semantics for 'tag', and clarifies pagination parameters. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists physical sites (datacenters, offices, POPs) from NetBox, distinguishing it from siblings like netbox_get_site which is for single ID lookup. The verb 'list' and resource 'sites' are specific, and common patterns help differentiate usage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit common patterns: discovery with no filters, lookup by id (recommends netbox_get_site instead), and narrow scan with filters. Pagination usage is explained. While not exhaustive on when not to use, it effectively guides the agent on typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints. The description adds detailed pagination behavior (limit/offset/max 1000, has_more, next_offset), auto-truncation logic, and response format options, going well beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear headers (Common patterns, Pagination, Resource-specific filters, Universal filters, Returns). Every section adds essential information without redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all key aspects: pagination, filters, response format, and auto-truncation. The JSON shape is provided, but field descriptions would be helpful since there is no output schema. Still, it is quite complete for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by categorizing filters (resource-specific vs universal) and explaining common patterns like combining 'q' with other filters. Baseline 3 plus extra guidance warrants a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists asset suppliers/vendors from NetBox using the netbox-inventory plugin. It explicitly distinguishes from netbox_get_supplier for when an id is already known, and the verb 'list' and resource 'suppliers' are precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides common patterns (discovery, lookup by id, narrow scan) and explicitly names netbox_get_supplier as an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for create/update/delete), though siblings cover those.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing the cascading deletion behavior, the irreversible nature, and the HTTP 204 response on success. It provides critical behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise yet comprehensive, using a clear structure: purpose, warning, cascading examples, user confirmation instruction, and return value. Every sentence adds necessary information without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single integer parameter, no output schema), the description covers all critical aspects: how to identify the ASN, the destructive nature, cascading effects, user confirmation requirement, and expected response. It is fully complete for an agent to safely use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already covers the parameter 'id' with type, minimum, and description. The description adds only a brief mention of 'numeric id', which is redundant. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not provide additional semantic value beyond what the schema offers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'delete', the specific resource 'asn', and the method 'by numeric id'. It is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from sibling delete tools for other resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: only after confirming the exact object and cascading effects with the user. It warns that the operation is destructive, irreversible, and cascades deletes, giving concrete examples. It also implicitly advises against use without confirmation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical behavioral context: cascade deletion, irreversibility, and HTTP 204 return. It fully discloses downstream effects with concrete examples, going beyond annotations without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured: a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by essential warnings and return information. Every sentence serves a purpose; no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering destructiveness, the description fully explains behavior, cascade implications, return value, and required user confirmation. No output schema is needed as return is simply stated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter. The description mentions 'by numeric id' but does not significantly add detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a asset_role from NetBox by numeric id.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and among siblings like netbox_get_asset_role and netbox_create_asset_role, it uniquely identifies the delete action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns of destructive and irreversible effects, explains cascade deletes, and instructs to confirm with the user before calling. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including caution against alternatives like get/list first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description details the cascading delete behavior, gives concrete examples of what can be affected, and states there is no undo. It also mentions the HTTP 204 response. This adds significant behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with no wasted words. It is well-structured: purpose first, then warnings, then user instruction, then return value. Every sentence contributes essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature and single parameter, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, risk, behavior, user confirmation requirement, and expected outcome. No gaps are present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', which is already described as 'Numeric id of the cable to delete.' The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a cable from NetBox by numeric id.' It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes from sibling delete tools by specifying the exact resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns that the operation is destructive and irreversible, explains cascading deletes with examples, and instructs the agent to confirm with the user before calling. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond the annotations by detailing cascading delete effects with concrete examples, emphasizing irreversibility, and specifying the HTTP 204 response. This provides rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not cover.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear action statement, prominent warning, detailed explanation of cascading, user confirmation instruction, and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the destructive nature and cascading behavior, the description covers essential aspects—action, dangers, confirmation step, and expected response. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's impact and use it safely, even without an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'id' is fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description reiterates 'numeric id' but adds no new semantic details. As the schema already provides sufficient meaning, the marginal contribution is small but the integration is clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool deletes a cluster from NetBox by numeric id, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools by naming the specific object type (cluster) and providing unique warnings about cascading deletes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns about destructive and irreversible behavior, explains cascading deletes with examples, and instructs to confirm with the user before calling. While it does not explicitly list when not to use the tool or alternatives, the strong caution suffices for safe usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (destructiveHint: true), the description adds critical context about NetBox cascade deletion behavior, HTTP 204 response, and the irreversibility. It enhances understanding without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loads the action, and uses structured warnings and return value explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter, complete schema, and no output schema needed, the description fully covers behavior, return values, and necessary warnings. It is complete for the tool's purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with a description for the 'id' parameter. The description does not add further parameter semantics, but this is acceptable as the schema already explains it adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'console_server_port' with the method 'by numeric id'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools as the dedicated delete operation for this resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns about destructive and irreversible nature, explains cascade deletes with examples, and instructs to confirm with the user before calling. This provides excellent when-to-use and when-to-avoid guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds critical context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: details about NetBox cascading deletes (e.g., deleting a device removes interfaces, power ports, assigned IPs) and confirms HTTP 204 response. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured: a brief opening sentence, then important warnings, examples, and response info. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the destructive nature, the description covers the action, cascading risks, user confirmation requirement, and response. No output schema exists, but the description adequately addresses what the agent needs to know.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (id) with 100% schema coverage. The description states 'numeric id', which mirrors the schema. No additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Delete a contact_assignment from NetBox by numeric id.' The verb, resource, and method are explicit. Differentiates from other delete tools by naming the specific resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Warns that the operation is destructive and irreversible, explains cascading deletes with concrete examples, and instructs to confirm with the user before calling. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by detailing cascading behavior with concrete examples (devices, sites, manufacturers) and the HTTP response (204 No Content). It fully discloses the destructive and irreversible nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (~100 words), front-loaded with the main action, and uses clear sections for warnings. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, parameter, cascading consequences, return value, and required user confirmation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'id' is well documented in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description only adds 'numeric id', which does not significantly extend the schema, but no additional clarification is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('delivery'), specifying deletion by numeric ID. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools that delete other object types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to confirm with the user before calling, warns about irreversibility and cascading deletes, and provides context on when to use (with caution). No alternative tools are named, but the guidelines are strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes beyond annotations by detailing cascading behavior (e.g., deleting a device removes interfaces, IPs) and indicating the HTTP 204 response. No contradiction with destructiveHint annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise yet comprehensive. It starts with a clear action statement, then presents critical warnings in a blocked format, and ends with the response type. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation, the description fully covers the purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral implications, and response. No output schema exists, but the return information is provided. Contextually complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'id' is described in the schema as 'Numeric id of the device_bay to delete.' The description does not add further semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a device_bay from NetBox by numeric id', specifying the verb (Delete), resource (device_bay), and method (by numeric id). It distinguishes from sibling delete tools by focusing on device bays.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit warnings: 'DESTRUCTIVE and IRREVERSIBLE', explains cascading deletes with examples, and instructs to confirm with the user before calling. This gives clear guidance on when and how to use the tool responsibly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing cascading delete behavior with concrete examples (device deletion removes interfaces, power ports, etc.). It also mentions the HTTP 204 No Content response, adding transparency about what to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, followed by a highlighted warning, cascading explanation, usage instruction, and response information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple parameter set and the presence of annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, the irreversible/cascading nature, user confirmation requirement, and the expected response. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter (id) is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add additional semantic context beyond the schema's description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Delete a front_port from NetBox by numeric id'), specifying the verb, resource, and method. Among sibling delete tools, it is distinct by naming the specific object type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states the tool is 'DESTRUCTIVE and IRREVERSIBLE' and instructs the agent to 'Confirm the exact object — and what will cascade with it — with the user before calling.' This provides clear usage guidance for a high-risk operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations already mark destructiveHint true, the description adds significant behavioral context: cascading deletes are explained with examples, and the HTTP 204 response is mentioned. This goes beyond the annotation, providing critical safety information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two well-structured paragraphs. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by critical warnings and behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete operation with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: parameter, destructive behavior, cascade effects, user confirmation requirement, and return value (HTTP 204). It leaves no gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the 'id' parameter thoroughly (numeric, minimum 1). The description simply reiterates 'by numeric id', adding minimal extra meaning. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete'), the specific resource ('front_port_template'), and the required identifier ('by numeric id'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by focusing on deletion of a specific object.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly warns that the operation is destructive and irreversible, and advises confirming with the user before proceeding. It also explains cascading deletes with concrete examples, helping the agent understand when and how to use the tool responsibly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. Description adds specific cascade examples (device removes interfaces, site removes racks) and mentions HTTP 204 response. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured: purpose, warnings, cascade details, confirmation requirement, return value. Every sentence is valuable and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple destructive tool with 1 param and no output schema, the description covers all necessary behavioral context, including cascading behavior and confirmation requirement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter. Description mentions 'numeric id' but does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'Delete', the resource 'inventory_item_type', and the identifier 'numeric id'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get, create, update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly warns of destructiveness, irreversibility, and cascading deletes. Advises to confirm with user before calling. Provides clear when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set destructiveHint=true. The description goes beyond by stating 'DESTRUCTIVE and IRREVERSIBLE' and providing detailed cascade examples, giving the agent a thorough understanding of consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then presents warnings and cascading effects in a structured, easy-to-read format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter delete tool, the description covers purpose, destructive nature, cascade behavior, and return value (HTTP 204). No additional output schema is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description does not add extra meaning to the 'id' parameter beyond what the schema provides. No elaboration on how to obtain the ID or other usage tips.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a location from NetBox by numeric id.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from other delete tools by focusing on location.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to 'Confirm the exact object — and what will cascade with it — with the user before calling.' This provides clear guidance on when caution is needed, though it doesn't mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining the cascade behavior with examples (e.g., deleting a device removes interfaces) and the irreversibility. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences and a short paragraph. Front-loaded with purpose, then warnings. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter deletion tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety warnings, cascade behavior, and success response (HTTP 204). Complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the 'id' parameter. The description adds 'by numeric id' but does not provide new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Delete a power_panel from NetBox by numeric id.' The verb 'Delete' and resource 'power_panel' are explicit, and the method 'by numeric id' is specified. Distinguishes from many sibling delete tools by focusing on power_panel.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly warns that the operation is destructive, irreversible, and cascading. Instructs the agent to confirm with the user before calling, providing clear when-to-use guidance. Contrasts with read-only tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description details cascade delete behavior with concrete examples, emphasizes irreversibility, and states the HTTP 204 response. This adds significant value and context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with purpose and warnings, followed by behavior and user guidance. Every sentence is essential and efficiently conveys critical information in a compact form.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete with one parameter, the description covers purpose, parameter, behavior (cascades), user guidance, and response format. It is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no new parameter details beyond reinforcing 'numeric id'. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides sufficient meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Delete a power_port from NetBox by numeric id.' This clearly defines the action (delete) and the target resource (power_port), distinguishing it from other delete tools among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description instructs the agent to 'Confirm the exact object — and what will cascade with it — with the user before calling.' This provides explicit when-to-use guidance and a crucial prerequisite, ensuring safe invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical context: 'DESTRUCTIVE and IRREVERSIBLE. NetBox CASCADES deletes... There is no undo.' It also mentions the HTTP 204 response. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose, then warnings. Every sentence adds essential information, no fluff. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, behavioral risks, and expected response. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id'. The description reiterates 'by numeric id' but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Delete a provider_network from NetBox by numeric id.' It clearly identifies the specific verb (delete) and resource (provider_network) and distinguishes from sibling delete tools by naming the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance: warns about destructive and irreversible nature, explains cascading deletes, and instructs to 'Confirm the exact object — and what will cascade with it — with the user before calling.' This tells the agent when and how to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical details beyond annotations: explains cascading deletes with examples, irreversibility, and HTTP 204 response. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is tightly structured: one sentence for purpose, a paragraph for warnings, and a sentence for output. Every part is essential and adds value; no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description explains the expected response. It covers the operation's impact (cascading deletes) and required user confirmation, making it fully contextual for a delete tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the only parameter (id) with 100% coverage and a description. The tool description merely restates that id is numeric, adding no new semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a supplier from NetBox by numeric id,' providing a specific verb and target resource. Among many delete sibling tools, it uniquely identifies the supplier entity, so no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns that the operation is destructive, irreversible, and cascades deletes. It advises confirming with the user before calling, which is excellent usage guidance for a dangerous operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it details cascading deletes, the irreversible nature, and the HTTP 204 response. There is no contradiction with the destructiveHint annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single sentence for purpose, followed by a clearly separated warning block, and a final sentence on return value. Every sentence is necessary and adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with cascading effects, the description covers all critical aspects: the required id, the danger of cascading deletes, the need for user confirmation, and the expected success response (HTTP 204). No output schema exists, but the return info is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id', and the schema already describes its type and minimum. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting baseline expectations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('delete'), the resource ('tenant_group'), and the identifier ('by numeric id'). It is specific and distinguishes from other tools by explicitly naming the target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: after user confirmation, due to destructive and irreversible nature. It also warns about cascading deletes and advises to confirm the exact object and its dependencies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes cascading delete behavior (e.g., deleting a device removes interfaces, etc.) and mentions the HTTP 204 response. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint, but the description adds important context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise with four sentences, front-loaded with the action and key warnings. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, how to use it, what response to expect, and important consequences.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description reiterates the parameter's purpose without adding new semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as no extra value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Delete a virtual_machine from NetBox by numeric id.' It uses a specific verb and resource, differentiating from sibling tools that delete other objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly warns that the operation is destructive and irreversible, and advises confirming with the user to avoid unintended cascading deletions. Provides clear when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true; the description adds crucial behavioral context: cascading deletes, irreversibility, and the HTTP 204 response. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise, well-structured paragraphs. The first sentence delivers the core purpose. The second bulk explains risks and behaviors. The third briefly states return value. No unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, destructive behavior, cascading effects, and return value. No output schema exists, but return value is mentioned. Fully complete given simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the single 'id' parameter with a clear description. The description repeats 'by numeric id' but adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Delete a vlan from NetBox by numeric id.' It uniquely identifies the action and object, distinguishing it from siblings like netbox_get_vlan or netbox_create_vlan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly warns that the action is 'DESTRUCTIVE and IRREVERSIBLE' and details cascading deletes. Advises confirming the exact object and potential side effects with the user, providing clear when-to-use and caution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing the cascading behavior of NetBox deletes with concrete examples (deleting a device removes its interfaces, etc.). It also states that the operation is irreversible and that there is no undo. This provides full behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. It opens with the core purpose in one sentence, then provides a bold warning with essential behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place, and the warning is front-loaded. There is no redundant or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, delete operation) and the presence of annotations (destructiveHint), the description fully covers what is needed: it explains the destructive nature, cascading effects, the need for user confirmation, and the expected response. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter is 'id', and the schema already describes it as 'Numeric id of the vlan_translation_rule to delete.' The description merely echoes this by saying 'by numeric id.' With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, thus a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Delete a vlan_translation_rule from NetBox by numeric id.' This clearly identifies the action (delete), the resource (vlan_translation_rule), and the method (by numeric id). The name and description together distinguish this tool from sibling deletion tools, as each targets a specific entity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides strong usage guidance: it warns that the operation is destructive, irreversible, and cascades deletes in NetBox. It instructs the agent to 'Confirm the exact object — and what will cascade with it — with the user before calling.' This explicitly tells the agent when and how to use the tool (only after user confirmation).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide read-only, idempotent, non-destructive hints. The description adds value by detailing the return format ('Markdown detail or JSON with full object including nested references') and that it returns a single circuit, which is not covered by annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three precise sentences: purpose, usage context, and return format. No superfluous words, well-structured, and front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter guidance, and return format. It is complete given the annotations and schema richness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the response_format parameter in context ('Use json when chaining follow-up tool calls'), which goes beyond the schema's enum description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Get a single circuit from NetBox by numeric id' and distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_list_circuits and netbox_create_circuit. It also explains the use case context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises 'Use after netbox_list_circuits has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This provides clear when-to-use and implies when-not-to-use. Additionally, guidance on response_format is given for follow-up tool calls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, indicating safe read operation. The description adds that it returns Markdown or JSON, and specifies that JSON is for chaining follow-up calls, which is useful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences long, front-loading the purpose, then usage, then return format. Every sentence is informative and no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, strong annotations, and complete schema, the description adequately covers usage and output. No output schema exists, but the description informs the return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds context for response_format, explaining that JSON is useful for chaining. It does not add much beyond schema, but the chaining hint provides extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'single circuit_group from NetBox by numeric id'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool netbox_list_circuit_groups by specifying usage after listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: after netbox_list_circuit_groups has located the object, or when the id is already known. No exclusion is necessary for a simple get tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. Description adds that output can be Markdown or JSON with nested references, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences with no redundancy, front-loaded with purpose, and structured for quick scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id tool, the description fully covers prerequisite, parameter usage, and return format, making it self-contained for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers parameters with 100% coverage. Description explains the id parameter usage and distinguishes response_format options, including practical advice ('use json when chaining follow-up calls').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves a single circuit_group_assignment by numeric id, distinguishing it from list operations like netbox_list_circuit_group_assignments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises using after netbox_list_circuit_group_assignments or when the ID is known, providing clear when-to-use guidance and referencing the list sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds return format details (Markdown or JSON with nested references), which is valuable beyond annotations. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with action, no waste. Returns section is separate and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with 2 parameters, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description covers usage, parameters, and return formats completely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and descriptions are adequate (id as numeric ID, response_format with enum and default). Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get a single console_server_port from NetBox by numeric id' – specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling netbox_list_console_server_ports by being the singular retrieval version.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use after netbox_list_console_server_ports has located the object, or when you already have the id.' Provides clear context for when to use this tool vs its list counterpart.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds return format behavior (Markdown vs JSON) without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded, no filler. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, usage, return format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get tool with full schema and annotations, description covers what, when to use, and what to expect. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage for both parameters. Description adds extra usage hint about JSON format for chaining, adding value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states action 'Get', resource 'contact_assignment', and identifier 'numeric id'. Distinguishes from sibling list and create tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to use after list tool or when id is known, and provides guidance on response_format for tool chaining.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds return format detail (markdown vs JSON with nested references) beyond structured fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences with no redundancy, front-loaded with core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with detailed schema and annotations, description covers usage flow, return options, and chaining guidance completely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% so baseline 3. Description adds value by noting 'Use json when chaining follow-up tool calls' for the response_format parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action 'Get a single device_role from NetBox by numeric id', distinct from sibling tools like netbox_list_device_roles (list/search) and create/update variants.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly guides to use after netbox_list_device_roles or when id is known, preventing misuse for search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the return format (Markdown by default, JSON optional) and notes that JSON returns the full object with nested references. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: three sentences with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with usage guidance and return format details. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, and return format. The annotations and schema already provide structural details, so the description is complete for agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, so both parameters ('id' and 'response_format') are fully described. The description adds contextual guidance for 'response_format', explaining when to use JSON for chaining, which improves usability.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states exactly what the tool does: 'Get a single front_port from NetBox by numeric id.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the context signals (sibling tools like netbox_list_front_ports, netbox_create_front_port) distinguish this as a retrieval operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use after netbox_list_front_ports has located the object, or when you already have the id.' It also provides guidance on the response_format parameter, recommending 'json' for chaining tool calls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and open world. Description adds return format options (markdown/json) and nesting details, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences with clear structure, no fluff. Highlights key steps and return format, easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, description adequately explains return content (full object with nested references in markdown or json) and suggests usage scenario, making it complete for a get operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters (100% coverage). Description adds context by explaining the usage flow (id after list) and when to choose json format for chaining, adding value above schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it gets a single power_port by numeric id. Distinguishes from sibling list tools by advising use after netbox_list_power_ports. Specific verb and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says use after netbox_list_power_ports or when id is available. Provides clear context for when to invoke, no ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds details about return formats: 'Markdown detail (default) or JSON with the full NetBox object including nested references', which complements annotations and clarifies output behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only three sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding essential usage and output details. Every sentence is valuable and there is no extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the annotations, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return types comprehensively. It is a complete and self-contained description for a read-only retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no new parameter-level information beyond what the input schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single provider_account from NetBox by numeric id', using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by recommending use after netbox_list_provider_accounts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use after netbox_list_provider_accounts has located the object, or when you already have the id', providing clear when-to-use guidance and implying when not to use (i.e., when id is unknown).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). Description adds value by detailing return formats (Markdown vs JSON) and that JSON includes nested references.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise (4 lines), front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then returns. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single get tool with comprehensive annotations and schema coverage, the description is complete: it explains output options and prerequisite usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters fully (100%). Description reinforces id usage and adds context about nested references in JSON output, slightly enhancing semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly identifies the tool as retrieving a single service_template by numeric id, distinguishing it from list/create/update/delete siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to use after netbox_list_service_templates or when id is known, providing clear context for invocation relative to a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds useful behavioral details about return formats (markdown vs JSON) and that JSON includes full nested references, which helps agents decide output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four concise sentences with no waste. Purpose is front-loaded in first sentence. All information is relevant and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 2 parameters fully documented in schema and no output schema, description adequately explains return formats (markdown default, JSON with full object). Missing error info is acceptable for a simple get-by-id operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters. Description adds context by describing 'numeric id' and advises using 'json' for chaining follow-up calls, which goes beyond schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get a single vlan_group from NetBox by numeric id', specifying verb, resource, and method. It distinguishes from sibling netbox_list_vlan_groups which lists multiple groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use after netbox_list_vlan_groups has located the object, or when you already have the id', providing clear context and an alternative approach.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds pagination behavior (limit, offset, has_more, next_offset), auto-truncation, and response structure. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, patterns, pagination, filters, returns). Every sentence is informative and non-redundant. Front-loaded with main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given full schema coverage and annotations, the description is comprehensive. Covers all necessary aspects: pagination, truncation, filtering options, and response format. No gaps for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description groups filters into resource-specific and universal, but does not add new information beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List asset roles' and specifies it's from the netbox-inventory plugin. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning that for lookup by id, one should use netbox_get_asset_role instead.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit common patterns: Discovery (no filters), Lookup by id (use get instead), Narrow scan (combine filters). Also explains pagination and when to continue fetching. Clearly guides when to use this tool vs alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds valuable behavioral details: pagination mechanics, auto-truncation, response shape with has_more/next_offset, and filtering semantics (AND for tags). No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: one-line summary, common patterns, pagination details, filter groups, return format. It is concise (every sentence adds value) and front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, pagination, multiple output formats) and no output schema, the description covers response shape, pagination workflow, and common use cases. It is sufficient for correct agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 78%, so baseline is 3. The tool text lists resource-specific filters (name, slug) without descriptions, missing an opportunity to add value. However, it clarifies tag AND-semantics and response_format options, which are helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List cluster types (technology) from NetBox' and distinguishes itself from sibling netbox_get_cluster_type for specific lookup. It provides common patterns that clarify the tool's purpose and scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly outlines when to use this tool (Discovery with no filters, Narrow scan with filters) and when not to (Lookup by id: use netbox_get_cluster_type instead). Pagination guidelines are also provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds useful behavioral details: pagination behavior (limit cap, auto-truncation, next_offset), response format options (markdown or JSON), and the fact that large lists auto-truncate. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-organized into sections with bullet points. Every sentence adds value: purpose, patterns, pagination details, filter groups, return format. No fluff. Front-loaded with the core action and key differentiator.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description explains response shape (total, count, offset, limit, items, has_more, next_offset) and format options. Covers all common usage patterns and filter combinations. For a simple list tool with many filters, this is complete and actionable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 78% (7 of 9 params have descriptions). Description groups filters into 'resource-specific' and 'universal', and explains the role of 'q' vs 'name'/'slug'. It also explains pagination parameters (limit/offset) in context. This adds value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, especially for the two undocumented params (name, slug) which are implied.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description starts with 'List contact roles from NetBox' and distinguishes from sibling netbox_get_contact_role by saying 'use netbox_get_contact_role instead when you already have an id.' It also outlines patterns (discovery, lookup, narrow scan) that clarify the tool's role relative to other listing and CRUD tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use this tool vs netbox_get_contact_role ('use...instead when you already have an id'). Provides clear patterns for discovery, narrow scan, and pagination advice. This helps an agent decide between this and other netbox_list_* tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds detailed pagination behavior (auto-truncation, has_more/next_offset), response shape, and filter effects. Adds significant value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections and bullet points. Front-loaded with purpose and common patterns. Every sentence is informative and concise. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all aspects of a list operation: filtering, pagination, response format, and common use cases. Includes details like auto-truncation and how to continue pagination. Complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 70%, so baseline is 3. Description lists resource-specific filters but only names them without extra context. However, it does provide detailed explanation of universal filters (q, tag, date filters) and pagination parameters. The description partially compensates but adds minimal meaning for resource-specific filters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it lists contacts (people/teams) from NetBox. Distinguishes itself from netbox_get_contact for lookup by id. Purpose is specific and action-oriented.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit common patterns: discovery (no filters), lookup by id (use alternative tool), narrow scan (combine filters). Also explains pagination handling. Gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: pagination details (limit, offset, has_more, next_offset), auto-truncation of large lists, and the response format (Markdown or JSON with shape). No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, common patterns, pagination, filters, returns) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the tool has many filters making it necessarily somewhat lengthy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers pagination behavior, filter semantics, return format, and alternatives. It is fairly complete for a list tool, though could mention that the tool is read-only (already in annotations).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 64%, and the description compensates by explaining the pagination parameters (limit, offset) and universal filters (q, tag, created_after, created_before) in detail. Resource-specific filters are listed but lack descriptions; however, the description adds context for usage patterns (e.g., combining q with filters) beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List bays that hold child devices from NetBox.' It uses specific verb+resource ('List device_bays') and distinguishes from siblings like netbox_get_device_bay (for lookup by id) and netbox_create_device_bay / netbox_update_device_bay.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage patterns: 'Discovery: call with no filters', 'Lookup by id: use netbox_get_device_bay instead', and 'Narrow scan: combine q with resource-specific filters.' It also gives pagination instructions and mentions auto-truncation, offering clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds crucial behavioral context: pagination (limit, offset, has_more, next_offset), auto-truncation of large responses to stay under character limits, and the availability of JSON output for chaining. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, but the incomplete 'group_id' note slightly detracts from overall conciseness. Still efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with 8 parameters, pagination, and multiple filter types, the description covers most aspects: purpose, usage patterns, pagination mechanics, filters, and return format. The lack of description for the 'group_id' filter is a gap, but otherwise complete. No output schema exists, but return shape is explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is high (88%), but the description adds value by grouping filters into resource-specific and universal categories, explaining pagination parameters, and suggesting how to combine filters (e.g., 'q' with others). However, the 'group_id' parameter description is incomplete (just 'group_id:' with no details), missing an opportunity to fully compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists FHRP group to interface assignments from NetBox, specifying the verb (list) and resource (FHRP group assignments). It also distinguishes from a sibling tool (netbox_get_fhrp_group_assignment) by advising its use when an ID is already known.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit usage patterns are provided: discovery with no filters, lookup by ID using an alternative tool, and narrow scanning with filters. Pagination behavior with limit, offset, has_more, and next_offset is detailed, guiding the agent on how to handle large result sets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds pagination details (limit, offset, auto-truncation) and return shape, which are useful. No contradictions. Slightly less than 5 because annotations cover most safety aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with clear sections (common patterns, pagination, filters, returns). It uses bullet points and is concise without unnecessary repetition. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a listing tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage patterns, pagination behavior, detailed filter descriptions, and return format. It is complete and self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in schema. The description adds value by grouping filters into 'resource-specific' and 'universal', explaining 'q' fuzzy search, AND-tag semantics, and default/max for 'limit'. This exceeds the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List inventory item groups' and distinguishes from the sibling 'netbox_get_inventory_item_group' by recommending it for ID-based lookup. It also specifies the plugin context, making the resource unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit patterns: discovery, lookup by ID (with alternative tool), and narrow scan with filters. It also tells when not to use (when ID is known, use get tool), which is excellent guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses pagination, auto-truncation, response shape, and response_format options. Annotations already indicate read-only, but description adds operational details beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with sections for common patterns, pagination, filters, and returns. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Comprehensive for a list tool: explains pagination mechanics, auto-truncation, filter types, response format (markdown vs JSON), and even return shape. No output schema, but sufficiently covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%. Description groups filters into resource-specific and universal, but doesn't add meaning beyond names for many params. Some params (e.g., device_id, device) lack additional context. Still useful categorization.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List discrete inventory items on a device from NetBox' and distinguishes from sibling netbox_get_inventory_item. It provides a specific verb+resource with clear scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit common patterns (discovery, lookup by id, narrow scan) and alternative tool suggestion. Pagination guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive; description adds pagination behavior (auto-truncate, has_more, next_offset) and response format details, which are beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with sections: description, patterns, pagination, filters, returns. Front-loaded with key purpose and patterns. No redundant sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 16 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers all filters, pagination, response format, and common use cases. Exceptionally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Groups filters into resource-specific and universal, explains common patterns, and adds descriptions for parameters that have no schema description (e.g., type, status, supply, phase). Schema coverage 75% so description compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the resource (power feeds) and action (list), includes a parenthetical definition, and distinguishes from sibling netbox_get_power_feed for lookup by id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly patterns: Discovery (no filters), Lookup by id (use get instead), Narrow scan (combine q with filters). Also describes pagination usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds pagination details (auto-truncation, next_offset) and filtering behavior, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise yet thorough. It starts with the core purpose, then covers common patterns, pagination, filters, and return format in clearly labeled sections. Every sentence adds meaningful information, and there is no extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, pagination, filters, multiple use cases) and the lack of output schema, the description provides complete context: what the tool does, when to use it, how pagination works, available filters, and the shape of JSON responses. It meets all needs for correct agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, so each parameter is documented. The description adds value by grouping parameters into 'Resource-specific filters' and 'Universal filters', explaining their purpose and usage patterns (e.g., combining 'q' with other filters). This structured overview aids agent comprehension beyond raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List power inlets defined on a device type' with specific verb (List) and resource (power_port_templates). It clarifies the scope (defined on a device type, inherited by devices) and distinguishes from get_power_port_template by name and usage pattern.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit common patterns are given: discovery with no filters, lookup by id (referring to get tool), and narrow scan with filters. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool versus alternatives, including direct mention of netbox_get_power_port_template for ID-based retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds transparency about pagination auto-truncation, response format control (markdown vs json), filter behavior (AND semantics for tag), and the meaning of 'null' for vrf_id.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections, front-loaded with purpose and common patterns. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Efficient use of bullet points and whitespace.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 20-parameter listing tool with no required params and no output schema, the description covers all essential behavioral aspects: pagination, filtering categories, response shape, and alternative tools. Leaves no major gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 70%; the description adds semantics beyond the schema for several parameters (e.g., vrf_id 'null' matches global, tag uses AND semantics, created_after/before are ISO-8601). Also describes response_format parameter clearly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List IP prefixes (subnets) from NetBox' and distinguishes from netbox_get_prefix via the 'Common patterns' section, explicitly noting when to use that alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use patterns: discovery with no filters, lookup by id redirect to netbox_get_prefix, and narrow scan with filters. Also explains pagination usage with limit, offset, has_more, and next_offset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds critical behavioral details: pagination with auto-truncation, response shape with has_more and next_offset, and support for both markdown and JSON output. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-organized with clear sections (purpose, patterns, pagination, filters, returns). Bullet points and concise sentences. Every sentence adds information; no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: common patterns, pagination behavior, filter categories, and return format. Annotations provide safety and idempotency hints. No gaps identified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 78%. Description groups filters into resource-specific (provider_id, name) and universal (q, tag, created_after, created_before), adding structure. Lists pagination params and response_format. Falls short on explaining provider_id and name beyond listing them, but overall adds value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List provider networks from NetBox' (specific verb+resource). It distinguishes from sibling tool netbox_get_provider_network for single item lookup, and from create/update/delete tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit common usage patterns (discovery, lookup by id with alternative tool, narrow scan with filters). Explains pagination and response format. Could mention when not to use this tool (e.g., if you need a single item, use get), but it does say that indirectly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description details pagination behavior, auto-truncation, and response shape. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with sections for patterns, pagination, filters, and returns. Efficient use of bullet points and front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all aspects: usage patterns, pagination details, filter options, and return format (Markdown/JSON). No output schema, but response shape is described. Comprehensive for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 78%, so baseline is 3. The description groups filters and explains pagination but adds limited new semantics for parameters like name/slug beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List rack roles from NetBox' and distinguishes from the sibling tool netbox_get_rack_role by advising its use when an ID is already known.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit patterns: discovery, lookup by id (with alternative tool), and narrow scan. Explains pagination and filters, giving clear context for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds key behavioral details: pagination with has_more/next_offset, auto-truncation, return format (markdown/json), and filter semantics (AND for tags). No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is well-structured with sections for common patterns, pagination, and filters. It is front-loaded with the main action. While lengthy, every section adds value. Could be slightly more concise but remains effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 12 optional parameters and no output schema, description covers pagination mechanics, return shape (Markdown or JSON with fields), and filter types. Lacks detailed field descriptions for items and exact semantics of name__ic, but overall sufficient for a list tool. With output schema missing, some reliance on inference remains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 58%. Description compensates by grouping filters (resource-specific, universal) and explaining 'q', 'tag', date filters, and pagination params. Some filters like 'name__ic' are listed but not fully explained (likely case-insensitive contains), leaving minor gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List patch-panel rear ports from NetBox.' as a specific verb+resource. It explicitly distinguishes from netbox_get_rear_port by recommending it for ID lookups, and from other list tools by specifying 'rear ports'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use patterns: discovery, lookup by id (with alternative), and narrow scan. Includes pagination guidance, response truncation, and continuation instructions. Clearly differentiates from sibling get tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds valuable behavioral details: pagination auto-truncation, response shape (markdown vs JSON), and 'has_more' / 'next_offset' fields. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with headings, bullet points, and clear sections. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. Efficient use of whitespace and formatting makes it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description fully explains return format (Markdown summary or JSON shape with all fields). Covers pagination, filtering, and format choice. Complete for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 78%. Description adds context beyond schema: explains 'q' as fuzzy search across searchable fields, 'tag' as AND-filter by slugs, and date filters as ISO-8601 bounds. However, some parameters (name, tenant_id) lack additional context beyond listing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it lists BGP route targets for VRFs from NetBox, with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling netbox_get_route_target by noting that tool is for single ID lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Excellent guidance: describes common patterns (discovery, lookup by id with alternative tool, narrow scan with filters) and explains pagination (limit/offset, auto-truncate, next_offset). Also advises when to use json format.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant detail: pagination mechanics (limit, offset, has_more, next_offset), auto-truncation behavior, and response format options. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections, bullet points, and a front-loaded summary. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool complexity (10 parameters, no required ones, annotations provided), the description covers all key aspects: pagination, filtering, response format, and usage patterns. It is complete for effective agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 70%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining pagination parameter interplay and auto-truncation. However, resource-specific filters like cid and type_id are only listed without elaboration, leaving some parameters minimally documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List virtual circuits from NetBox', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool netbox_get_virtual_circuit and provides common usage patterns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. netbox_get_virtual_circuit and describes patterns (discovery, narrow scan). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond that by detailing pagination behavior (auto-truncation, has_more/next_offset) and response format options, which is valuable but not exhaustive (e.g., no mention of ordering).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise and well-structured. Each sentence adds value, organized into clear sections: purpose, common patterns, pagination, filters, and return format. No redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 9 parameters, no required, no output schema, the description is complete. It explains pagination, all filter types, and the return shape (Markdown or JSON with fields). Covers all necessary context for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 78%, high. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining common patterns, pagination usage, and the purpose of virtual_machine_id and name filters. However, some parameter descriptions are already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists virtual machine interfaces from NetBox. It specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'virtual machine interfaces', and distinguishes itself from netbox_get_vm_interface for single ID lookups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit usage patterns: discovery (no filters), lookup by ID (use netbox_get_vm_interface instead), and narrow scan (combine 'q' with specific filters). Also explains pagination mechanics with limit/offset and auto-truncation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safe read operation; description adds that return includes nested references and default markdown, without contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: three short sentences covering purpose, usage, and output. Front-loaded and no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all key aspects for a simple get tool: how to obtain id, output options, and format semantics. Lacks error handling mention but sufficient given annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters fully; description adds context on numeric id and when to choose json format, slightly enhancing beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Get a single interface from NetBox by numeric id', specifying verb, resource, and method. Differentiates from list tool by referencing netbox_list_interfaces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to use after netbox_list_interfaces or when ID is known, and advises on output format choice for chaining (json).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details: pagination mechanics (limit/offset, has_more/next_offset), auto-truncation for large lists, and response format options. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with sections (purpose, common patterns, pagination, filters, returns). Every sentence is useful and front-loaded with key information. No redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 12 parameters (0 required) and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the return shape (total, count, etc.) and pagination. However, it lacks details on the default ordering of results and doesn't describe error conditions. Still, comprehensive enough for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 58% (low), but the description compensates by explaining all resource-specific filters (cid, provider_id, type_id, status, tenant_id) and universal filters (q, tag, dates) with details like fuzzy search, AND semantics, and ISO-8601 format. It also covers pagination parameters. A slight deduction because some parameter descriptions (e.g., cid, status) are minimal in the description, but overall adds significant value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List circuits (provider data links) from NetBox' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling netbox_get_circuit by noting 'use netbox_get_circuit instead when you already have an id.' This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides common patterns: Discovery (no filters), Lookup by id (use netbox_get_circuit), and Narrow scan (combine filters). It also details pagination usage. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds significant behavioral context: pagination details (limit, offset, has_more, next_offset), auto-truncation for large lists, and response format options (markdown vs JSON with shape). No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections: overview, common patterns, pagination, resource-specific filters, universal filters, returns. It is concise with no wasted sentences, and the most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers pagination, filtering, response format, and provides examples. It does not explain all possible filter values (e.g., term_side could be A or Z), but the schema also lacks this. Overall, it is fairly complete for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 78%. The description explains pagination parameters (limit, offset, next_offset) and universal filters (q, tag, created_after/before). For resource-specific filters (circuit_id, term_side), it lists them but adds no further detail. This adds value beyond the schema but could be more descriptive for those two parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List circuit terminations (A/Z endpoints) from NetBox', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from netbox_get_circuit_termination by mentioning 'use netbox_get_circuit_termination instead when you already have an id'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, including a common patterns section with discovery, lookup by id (recommending get), and narrow scan. Pagination handling is also explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds pagination behavior (auto-truncation, next_offset), return format options, and filtering semantics, providing rich behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections and bullet points, making it easy to scan. It is not overly verbose, though some redundancy exists (e.g., pagination details repeated in two sections). Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no output schema, the description fully documents the return shape for both markdown and json formats, explains pagination metadata, and covers all parameter categories. It provides sufficient information for an agent to use the tool correctly in various scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 64%, and the description adds value by grouping filters into 'resource-specific' and 'universal', and explaining common patterns. However, some parameters like name, type_id, group_id, status have no description in the description beyond listing them, so the addition is not exhaustive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists compute clusters from NetBox. It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_get_cluster by explicitly saying 'use netbox_get_cluster instead when you already have an id'. The verb 'List' + resource 'compute clusters' is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit usage patterns: 'Discovery: call with no filters', 'Lookup by id: use netbox_get_cluster instead', 'Narrow scan: combine q with filters'. Also explains pagination usage and return format selection (markdown vs json) for chaining.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds significant value beyond annotations: details pagination (limit/offset, auto-truncation, 'has_more' field), response format options, and handling of large lists. No contradictions with readOnlyHint or other annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-organized with sections (common patterns, pagination, filters, returns). Most sentences are informative, though a few lines (e.g., resource-specific filters list) could be slightly more compact. Overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description fully explains return format (markdown/json with JSON shape). Covers all 10 parameters, pagination behavior, and common patterns. Complete for a list tool with rich annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 70%, so baseline is 3. Description adds structure by grouping filters (resource-specific vs universal) and explaining common patterns. However, some parameters like `name`, `name__ic`, `device_type_id` lack extra details beyond listing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List front port templates from NetBox' and provides common patterns like discovery and narrow scan. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `netbox_get_front_port_template` by advising to use that when already having an ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly describes when to use (discovery, narrow scan) and when not (lookup by id, advising alt tool). Also covers pagination and filtering contexts, giving clear usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as pagination behavior (limit, offset, has_more, next_offset), auto-truncation of large lists, and response formats. This complements the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections and front-loads the purpose. While it is somewhat verbose, every section provides necessary information, and the structure aids readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, pagination, filtering, return formats, and an alternative for single lookups. It provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists resource-specific filters (manufacturer_id, model) and universal filters with brief explanations, adding context to the schema. However, some parameters like 'model' and 'manufacturer_id' are not fully described, leaving minor gaps despite high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List module models (line cards, etc.) from NetBox,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from netbox_get_module_type by advising to use that tool when an ID is already known, ensuring no confusion with siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly suggests common patterns: 'call with no filters to browse' and 'use netbox_get_module_type instead when you already have an id.' It also provides guidance on pagination and combining filters, giving clear context on when and how to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds pagination details (limit max 1000, default 50, has_more, next_offset), auto-truncation, output format options, and filter grouping. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive; description complements without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with sections for common patterns, pagination, filters, and returns. Some redundancy with schema, but each part is relevant. Could be slightly shorter, but still effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, description explains return shape (Markdown or JSON with fields like total, count, has_more). Covers pagination behavior and filter usage thoroughly for a list tool with 10 parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value by grouping filters (universal vs resource-specific), explaining response_format usage, and providing pagination parameter details. The description organizes and contextualizes beyond schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists power outlet templates defined on a device type, inherited by devices. It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_get_power_outlet_template by specifying 'Lookup by id' alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit patterns: discovery with no filters, lookup by id should use get tool, narrow scan with filters. Alternative named: netbox_get_power_outlet_template.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: pagination behavior (auto-truncation to character limit), response shape with has_more and next_offset, and return format options. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, patterns, pagination, filters, returns). Front-loaded with key information. Could be slightly more concise but remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Comprehensive coverage of usage scenarios, pagination details, filtering options, and return format. No output schema but description adequately specifies the response shape.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Groups parameters into resource-specific and universal filters, explains AND semantics for tag, describes pagination parameters. Adds meaning beyond the schema descriptions, though some parameters (name, slug, parent_id) are only listed without extra detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'List tenant groups (nestable) from NetBox.' Distinguishes from sibling tool netbox_get_tenant_group by advising use of that tool for lookup by id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit patterns: discovery with no filters, lookup by id via alternative tool, narrow scan with filters. Explains pagination and when to use json vs markdown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds details about pagination behavior, auto-truncation, and response format. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so no safety concerns. Could mention rate limits or side effects, but not necessary for read-only tools.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections (common patterns, pagination, resource-specific filters, universal filters, returns). Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all 9 parameters, pagination details, filtering options, return shape, and usage patterns. No output schema exists, but description explains return format well. Given the complexity, it is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds meaning beyond schema: explains 'tag' as AND-filter, 'response_format' for chaining, and clarifies resource-specific filters (name, slug). Schema coverage is 78%, but description fills the gaps effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists virtual machine types from NetBox, and provides three common patterns (discovery, lookup by id, narrow scan) that distinguish it from the sibling tool netbox_get_virtual_machine_type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises when to use this tool (discovery, narrow scan) and when to use netbox_get_virtual_machine_type instead (when id is known). Also explains pagination and filtering usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds that it returns 'Markdown detail (default) or JSON with the full NetBox object including nested references', which gives insight into output format and nesting. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is four sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and usage, followed by return format. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and output format completely. No gaps or missing info.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage, but description adds context beyond schema: suggests using after netbox_list_devices for id, and explains when to use json format for chaining. This adds meaningful guidance beyond mere parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single device from NetBox by numeric id', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like netbox_list_devices (list multiple) and update/create/delete variants by specifying the 'single' device and numeric id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use after netbox_list_devices has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This provides clear context and an alternative tool for locating the id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the return formats ('Markdown detail or JSON') and clarifying the output includes 'the full NetBox object including nested references.' No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for core purpose, one for usage guidelines, and one for return behavior. Every sentence earns its place. Information is front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description completely covers what an agent needs: how to invoke (by id), output format options, and what the response contains (full object with nested references). No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the response_format parameter's use: 'Use 'json' when chaining follow-up tool calls.' This provides actionable guidance beyond the schema's description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single provider_network from NetBox by numeric id', which specifies the verb, resource, and method. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like netbox_list_provider_networks by indicating the prerequisite use of the list tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises 'Use after netbox_list_provider_networks has located the object, or when you already have the id.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implies when not to use it (without an id), and names the alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return format options (Markdown default vs JSON with nested references). Annotations already indicate safe read-only behavior; description adds useful response handling context without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences: purpose, usage, return info. No superfluous content. Front-loaded with key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all essentials: what, when, parameters, output. No missing gaps given the tool's simplicity and annotation richness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and description reiterates numeric id and explains when to use 'json' vs 'markdown' for response_format, adding value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('Get'), resource ('purchase'), and method ('by numeric id'). Distinct from siblings like netbox_list_purchases (list) and create/update mutations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'after netbox_list_purchases has located the object, or when you already have the id.' Provides clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details like pagination with limit/offset, auto-truncation for large lists, and the response shape including 'has_more' and 'next_offset'. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections: summary, common patterns, pagination, resource-specific filters, universal filters, and returns. Each sentence serves a purpose, no fluff, and it's concise while covering essential details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (14 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, filtering, pagination, and return format. The annotations provide safety guarantees. The agent has enough context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining common patterns and some filter semantics (e.g., type slugs, color hex format, date filters). However, parameters like label, length, tenant_id, and status are listed without additional explanation, and schema coverage is 64%. Overall, it provides meaningful but not exhaustive guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists cables between two endpoints. It differentiates from sibling tools like netbox_get_cable and netbox_global_search, and explicitly mentions the specific resource (cables) and action (list).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance: use no filters for discovery, use netbox_get_cable for known IDs, and combine filters for narrow scans. Pagination handling and response format usage are also clearly explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: pagination (limit/offset, max 1000, auto-truncation, has_more/next_offset), response format options, and that it supports filtering. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (common patterns, pagination, filters, returns). It uses bullet points and concise language, with no redundancy. Every sentence provides necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and the complexity of pagination and filtering, the description is comprehensive. It covers usage patterns, pagination behavior (including auto-truncation), all filter types, and response format (Markdown vs JSON shape). This is more than sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context by grouping filters into 'resource-specific' and 'universal', explaining the 'q' parameter's role in fuzzy search, and clarifying the pagination parameters' usage (e.g., 'Use next_offset from a previous response'). This adds meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List circuit groups from NetBox' and distinguishes from sibling netbox_get_circuit_group by specifying when to use each: 'Discovery: call with no filters' vs 'Lookup by id: use netbox_get_circuit_group instead when you already have an id.' This provides a specific verb and resource with differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'use netbox_get_circuit_group instead when you already have an id.' It also outlines common patterns (discovery, lookup, narrow scan), giving clear context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), description adds pagination behavior (limit max 1000, default 50, has_more, next_offset), auto-truncation for large lists, and response format options. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with sections: main purpose, common patterns, pagination, filters, returns. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Approximately 200 words, efficiently front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all essential aspects for a list tool: purpose, pagination, filtering, alternatives, response shape (even without output schema). No gaps given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds context beyond the already good schema descriptions (78% coverage). Explains usage patterns like 'q for fuzzy text', pagination parameters with defaults, and 'response_format' enum. However, some parameter descriptions in schema are already clear, so marginal added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List circuit types from NetBox' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like netbox_get_circuit_type (single lookup) and netbox_create/update/delete by being the list variant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit patterns: 'Discovery: call with no filters', 'Lookup by id: use netbox_get_circuit_type instead', 'Narrow scan: combine filters'. Also explains pagination and when to use JSON response for chaining.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details on pagination (limit/offset, auto-truncation, has_more/next_offset) and filtering, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections for common patterns, pagination, filters, and returns. It is concise yet informative, front-loading the purpose and using bullet points for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return format (Markdown or JSON shape with all fields). It covers pagination, filtering, and patterns, making the tool self-contained for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 78%, so schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by explaining pagination behavior (auto-truncation) and listing filters. However, the resource-specific filters 'name' and 'slug' have no description in either schema or description, missing an opportunity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists cluster groups from NetBox. It distinguishes itself from the sibling netbox_get_cluster_group by suggesting its use for lookup by id, and from other list tools by the specific resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides usage patterns: discovery, lookup by id (with alternative tool), and narrow scan. It gives clear context on when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive. Description adds significant behavioral context: pagination behavior (limit max 1000, default 50, has_more/next_offset), auto-truncation for large lists, and return format options. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, patterns, pagination, filters (grouped), return format. Every sentence contributes essential information. No fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, description covers all necessary aspects: pagination, filtering options, common use cases, return format. Combined with annotations, it provides complete guidance for agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 58%, and description adds meaningful context beyond schema: groups filters into 'resource-specific' and 'universal' categories, explains q as fuzzy text search, and clarifies tag as AND-filtered. Some params (device, name) lack descriptions in schema but description provides minimal context. Overall adds value but doesn't fully compensate for all omissions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'List device console ports from NetBox' – specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling netbox_get_console_port by explicitly calling it out for single-record lookups. Provides common usage patterns (discovery, lookup by id, narrow scan).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises using netbox_get_console_port when id is already known. Gives clear guidance on when to use no filters (discovery) vs combining q with specific filters. Pagination instructions are thorough with limit/offset and auto-truncation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds significant behavioral details: pagination with limit/offset, auto-truncation, response shape, and support for both markdown and JSON formats, all without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections: intro, common patterns, pagination, filters, returns. Every sentence adds value, and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 10 parameters, no output schema, and existing annotations, the description provides complete context: pagination behavior, filtering options, alternative tools, and response format. An AI agent would be well-equipped to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 70%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context by grouping parameters (resource-specific filters, universal filters) and explaining common patterns. However, some parameters (device_type_id, name, name__ic) are listed without extra semantic meaning beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'List device bay templates from NetBox.' Provides specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling netbox_get_device_bay_template by advising its use for direct id lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly describes usage patterns: discovery, lookup by id (with alternative), and narrow scan. Also explains pagination and filtering, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description goes beyond by detailing pagination auto-truncation, the 'has_more' and 'next_offset' response fields, and the option to return either markdown or JSON. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear headers (Common patterns, Pagination, Resource-specific filters, Universal filters, Returns). Each section is concise and purposeful. The most critical information (purpose and when to use) is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (10 parameters, pagination, no output schema), the description is thorough. It explains return format (Markdown or JSON shape with all fields), pagination details, and all filter categories. It also differentiates from sibling tools effectively. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters into 'resource-specific filters' and 'universal filters', explaining common usage patterns for each, and providing examples (e.g., 'ISO-8601 date'). This enhances understanding beyond the schema descriptions alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'device roles', with examples like 'core-switch, leaf, hypervisor'. It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool 'netbox_get_device_role' by specifying that the latter is for lookup by id. This meets the criteria for a specific verb+resource with sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage patterns: 'Discovery: call with no filters', 'Lookup by id: use netbox_get_device_role instead', and 'Narrow scan: combine q with filters'. It also explains pagination usage and when to use subsequent calls. This is a model of clear when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description details pagination (limit, offset, auto-truncation, has_more, next_offset) and response formats. This adds significant behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized, starting with purpose, then usage patterns, pagination details, filter lists, and return format. It is efficient and concise, with no wasted sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 17 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: filters, pagination, response shape, and common use cases. It is comprehensive enough for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 88% schema coverage, the description adds value by providing example type slugs, explaining pagination parameters' behavior, and clarifying the response_format parameter. It does not fully document every parameter beyond the schema, but the added examples and context justify a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists device interfaces from NetBox, including physical, virtual, and LAG. It distinguishes from sibling netbox_get_interface by noting the lookup-by-id pattern, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit usage patterns are provided: discovery with no filters, lookup by id via alternative tool, and narrow scan with filters. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: pagination mechanics, auto-truncation, and response shape. It does not contradict any annotation (all safety hints are consistent).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, patterns, pagination, filters, returns). Every sentence adds value without fluff, and core purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description is very complete. It covers all aspects an agent needs: pagination, filtering, return format, and usage distinctions. Domain knowledge about interface templates is assumed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 70% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining filters like 'q' for fuzzy search, tag for AND-filtering, and response_format options. Some parameters (name, name__ic) lack extra detail but schema already covers basics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List interface templates from NetBox' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from netbox_get_interface_template for ID lookups and provides common patterns like discovery and narrow scan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly explains when to use this tool (listing, discovery, narrow scan) and when to use the sibling netbox_get_interface_template instead. It provides clear context for different usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds auto-truncation for large lists, pagination behavior (has_more, next_offset), and response format options, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is well-organized with clear sections (purpose, patterns, pagination, filters, returns). Every sentence serves a purpose, no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only list tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains pagination, filtering, response format, and alternatives. No missing details for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 78%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context for pagination (limit, offset, response_format) and explains filter usage. However, name and slug parameters have no description in schema and are only listed as placeholders, so not all parameters gain added meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'List inventory item roles from NetBox.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_get_inventory_item_role (for lookup by id) and netbox_create_inventory_item_role, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use alternatives: 'use netbox_get_inventory_item_role instead when you already have an id.' Also provides common patterns like discovery and narrow scan.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds significant value by detailing pagination behavior (has_more, next_offset), auto-truncation, filtering capabilities, and return format options. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for purpose, patterns, pagination, filters, and return format. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, pagination, filtering, response format, and alternatives. It provides enough detail for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 88%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping filters into universal and resource-specific categories, explaining the purpose of each group, and describing pagination parameters. However, the mac_address parameter lacks description both in schema and description, preventing a 5.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List MAC address objects from NetBox.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_get_mac_address by explicitly advising to use that tool for ID lookups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage patterns: discovery with no filters, lookup by ID via an alternative tool, and narrow scanning with filters. It also explains pagination and when to use json vs markdown, giving agents clear guidance on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing pagination truncation, response format options, and the shape of JSON output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for common patterns, pagination, filters, and returns. It is front-loaded with purpose and includes only necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description is comprehensive: it explains pagination fully, covers all filter categories, and describes both response formats. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds organizing categories (resource-specific vs universal) and usage context for pagination parameters, which provides moderate extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('PDU power outlets from NetBox'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_get_power_outlet by advising alternate usage when an ID is known.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit when-to-use patterns are provided: no filters for discovery, use get for single id, narrow scan with filters. Pagination behavior and continuation via next_offset are explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds auto-truncation behavior and pagination details (has_more, next_offset), exceeding what annotations provide. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections (headline, patterns, pagination, filters, returns). Every sentence adds value. Concise for the amount of information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
All 10 parameters are covered in schema; description adds return shape, pagination limits, and truncation behavior. No output schema needed. Complete for a list tool with good annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by categorizing filters (resource-specific vs. universal) and explaining pagination parameters' effects (max 1000, auto-truncation). Does not merely repeat schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (power distribution panels at a site) and distinguishes from netbox_get_power_panel for ID lookups. Common patterns like discovery and narrow scan reinforce purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly recommends netbox_get_power_panel as alternative for ID lookup, and provides patterns for discovery and narrow scans. Pagination and truncation behavior are also explained, guiding correct invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds details on pagination auto-truncation, response format options, and how to continue pagination, providing rich behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections for common patterns, pagination, filters, and returns. Every sentence is informative and earns its place; no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers pagination, filtering, response format, and usage patterns. It provides enough information for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to all 9 parameters by grouping them into resource-specific and universal filters, explaining pagination parameters, and describing response_format. However, the schema already covers 78% of parameters, so the description's added value is somewhat limited; it does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions for 'name' and 'slug' but provides useful context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The title and description clearly state it lists circuit providers (carriers) from NetBox. It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_get_provider, netbox_create_provider, and netbox_update_provider, providing specific verb+resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly outlines common patterns: discovery with no filters, lookup by id (recommending netbox_get_provider), and narrow scan using filters. Also explains pagination and when to use alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: pagination (limit, offset, has_more, next_offset), auto-truncation for large lists, and response format options (markdown/json). No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections (common patterns, pagination, filters, returns). Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but highly organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 15 parameters, zero required, no output schema, the description is complete. Explains all filters, pagination behavior, response shape fields (total, count, has_more, etc.), and even mentions auto-truncation. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but description adds grouping into resource-specific and universal filters, explains pagination parameters, and provides context like 'use next_offset from a previous response'. Adds meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists equipment racks from NetBox, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_get_rack (for ID lookup) and netbox_create_rack, using explicit language like 'use netbox_get_rack instead'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Describes three common patterns: discovery (no filters), lookup by id (refer to netbox_get_rack), and narrow scan (combine 'q' with filters). No misleading advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate safe read operation. Description adds pagination behavior (auto-truncation, has_more, next_offset) and response format options, providing value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections (Introduction, Common patterns, Pagination, Filters, Returns). Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Concise yet comprehensive.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters, no required ones, and rich schema description, the description fully explains usage, pagination, filters, and return format. It provides enough context for an agent to use this tool correctly among numerous sibling list tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 80%, so baseline is 3. Description adds usage context for pagination parameters (limit, offset) and groups filters logically. However, it mostly summarizes what's already in schema, with minimal additional meaning per parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists geographic regions from NetBox, with specific verb 'list' and resource 'regions'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'netbox_get_region' for single record lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit common patterns: Discovery (no filters), Lookup by id (use netbox_get_region), Narrow scan (combine q with filters). Also explains when to use JSON vs markdown response format.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds pagination details (limit/offset, has_more, next_offset), truncation for large lists, and response shape, which goes beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, patterns, pagination, filters, returns). No redundant sentences; every part is informative and necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers pagination, filtering, response format, and return shape. It provides all needed context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 78% schema coverage, description adds value by explaining 'q' as fuzzy text, 'tag' as AND-filter, date formats, and response_format options. It also clarifies use of 'next_offset' for pagination. Minor gap: 'name' and 'slug' not elaborated but schema covers them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists IPAM role taxonomy, and explicitly distinguishes from netbox_get_role for single record retrieval. The verb 'list' and resource 'roles' are specified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit common patterns (discovery, lookup by id, narrow scan) and advises when to use netbox_get_role instead. Also explains pagination behavior and when to use 'json' format for chaining.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds pagination details (limit, offset, has_more, next_offset), auto-truncation behavior, and response format options. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections (Common patterns, Pagination, Filters, Returns). Every sentence adds value. No redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage patterns.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, pagination, and two output formats, description covers all essential aspects: purpose, sibling differentiation, pagination mechanics, filter categories, and return shape. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is high (78%), so baseline is 3. Description adds value by grouping parameters into resource-specific and universal filters, explaining pagination parameters, and clarifying use of 'q' and 'tag'. This organization aids agent comprehension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it lists reusable service templates, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from netbox_get_service_template by id, and outlines common patterns (discovery, lookup by id, narrow scan).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives: use netbox_get_service_template when id is known. Provides guidance on discovery, lookup, and narrow scan patterns.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds crucial behavioral details: pagination auto-truncation, has_more/next_offset, nestable nature, and output format options. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with sections, bullet points, and clear headings. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. The description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters, pagination, filtering, and no output schema, the description covers everything: purpose, filters, pagination behavior, output format, and alternative tools. Complete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description categorizes filters into resource-specific and universal, and explains pagination parameters well. However, for parameters like 'name' and 'slug', it merely lists them without adding meaning beyond the schema. With 70% schema coverage, the description adds value but not fully for all parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it 'List functional site groups (nestable) from NetBox' and distinguishes from netbox_get_site_group for ID-based lookups. The verb 'List' and resource 'site groups' are specific, and the sibling differentiation is explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit usage patterns (discovery, lookup by id with alternative, narrow scan) and clearly states when not to use this tool (use netbox_get_site_group when you have an id).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description details pagination behavior, auto-truncation, and response format, adding significant behavioral context without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description covers return shape, pagination info, and filter details, making it complete for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 78%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for pagination (limit, offset, has_more), response_format, and date filters, but name and slug filters lack detail beyond listing them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists virtual circuit types from NetBox, and distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_get_virtual_circuit_type by specifying when to use it for discovery vs lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit usage patterns are provided: discovery with no filters, lookup by id with an alternative, and narrow scan with filters. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool versus others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: pagination auto-truncation, use of next_offset, response shape, and handling of large lists. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections (common patterns, pagination, filters, return format). It is concise yet comprehensive, with no wasted sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return format (Markdown or JSON with shape { total, count, offset, limit, items, has_more, next_offset? }). It covers all essential aspects: pagination, filtering, and output options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists resource-specific and universal filters, including explanation of 'q', 'tag', 'created_after', 'created_before'. Some parameters like 'name' have no schema description, but the description lists them. With 58% schema coverage, the description compensates by grouping and explaining, though individual parameter semantics for some (e.g., 'cluster_id') are not elaborated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'List virtual machines from NetBox' and provides clear patterns (discovery, lookup by id, narrow scan). It directly distinguishes from the sibling tool netbox_get_virtual_machine, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance (e.g., 'use netbox_get_virtual_machine instead when you already have an id') and common patterns like 'Discovery: call with no filters'. This helps the agent choose the correct tool for the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds pagination details (limit, offset, has_more, next_offset), auto-truncation for large lists, and return format options, providing full behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized into sections (intro, common patterns, pagination, filters, returns). Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 15 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage patterns, pagination, filtering, and return format. Includes important details like auto-truncation and response_format parameter. Complete for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67%. The description groups parameters into 'Resource-specific filters' and 'Universal filters', adding structure. It adds context for pagination and response format. However, several parameters (name, status, role_id, site_id, tenant_id) lack schema descriptions and the description only lists them without further detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List layer-2 VLANs from NetBox' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'netbox_get_vlan' by recommending the get tool when an ID is already known.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit common patterns: discovery (no filters), lookup by id (recommends netbox_get_vlan), and narrow scan (combine filters). It also explains pagination and when to use the json format for chaining.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add context. It explains pagination mechanics (auto-truncation, next_offset), response format options (markdown default vs json shape), and that large lists auto-truncate. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized into sections (common patterns, pagination, filters, returns). Each sentence is purposeful, no redundancy. The use of bullet points and clear headings makes it easy to scan without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the annotations (read-only, idempotent), schema (73% covered), and no output schema, the description covers all key behavioral aspects: how to paginate, what filters are available, and the response shape. It also directs the agent to netbox_get_vrf for single-item lookup, making the tool's role in a workflow clear. The only minor gap is that optionality of all parameters is implicit, but 'Common patterns' strongly implies it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 73% (8/11 params have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping filters into 'Resource-specific' and 'Universal' and provides brief clarifications for 'rd' and the date filters. However, 'enforce_unique' and 'tenant_id' lack explanation, and 'name' is left blank. Still, the grouping and pagination details elevate it above baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'VRFs (routing tables) from NetBox'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool netbox_get_vrf by advising to use that 'when you already have an id', and provides typical usage patterns (discovery, lookup, narrow scan).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for discovery (no filters), lookup by ID (delegate to get_vrf), and narrow scanning (combine q with filters). It also documents pagination details with limit/offset and the auto-truncation behavior, which helps the agent decide how to iterate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical behavioral context: pagination mechanics, auto-truncation, and the exact return shape. No contradictions with annotations; the description significantly augments them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized into clear sections: purpose, common patterns, pagination, filter groups, and return format. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 11 parameters, no output schema, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is fully complete. It covers all filters, pagination behavior, return format options, and common use cases. No gaps remain for an agent to misuse the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 11 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), but the description groups them into resource-specific, universal, and pagination categories. It explains the response_format parameter's purpose ('json' for chaining) and the pagination fields (has_more, next_offset). This adds semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists deliveries of purchased assets, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool netbox_get_delivery for ID-based lookup, and mentions browsing vs. searching patterns. This meets the highest standard of purpose clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly outlines common patterns: discovery, lookup by id (delegating to netbox_get_delivery), and narrow scan with filters. It gives concrete guidance on when to use each pattern, which is exceptional for a list tool among many siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds significant behavioral details: pagination with limit/offset, auto-truncation, response fields (has_more, next_offset), and output format options. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (brief intro, common patterns, pagination, filters, returns). Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the parameter count, annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, filtering, pagination, output format, and alternative tools. The JSON shape is described, compensating for missing output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining pagination semantics, common filter patterns, and the structure of the pagination response. It also groups filters into resource-specific and universal categories, aiding understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List hardware manufacturers from NetBox' and differentiates from the sibling tool netbox_get_manufacturer by advising to use that for lookup by ID. It is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance through common patterns (discovery, lookup by ID, narrow scan) and directly suggests an alternative tool (netbox_get_manufacturer). It also explains pagination behavior and filtering strategies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavioral context: pagination details (limit max 1000, default 50, offset, has_more, next_offset), auto-truncation for large lists, and response format options. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured: introduction, common patterns, pagination, filters, returns. Each sentence adds value with no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description explains return format (Markdown or JSON with shape details). Covers all 10 parameters, pagination, filtering, and format selection. Complete for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 70% schema coverage, description adds meaning to undocumented parameters (name, slug, group_id) by labeling them as resource-specific filters. Adds pagination semantics for limit/offset and use case for response_format (chaining). Provides examples for date filters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'List tenants (customers/departments) from NetBox', using specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling netbox_get_tenant by advising 'use netbox_get_tenant instead when you already have an id'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides common patterns: discovery, lookup by id (with alternative tool), and narrow scan. Also details pagination usage with limit/offset and next_offset, and when to use JSON format for chaining.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![netbox-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ZenixSolutions/netbox-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ZenixSolutions/netbox-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![netbox-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ZenixSolutions/netbox-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ZenixSolutions/netbox-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ZenixSolutions/netbox-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server