Get Cable

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.