List Platforms

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.