List Fhrp_groups

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.