Get Console_port

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.