Get Device NED ID's

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by using 'Retrieve' (a read operation). The description adds context about retrieving 'available' NED IDs in Cisco NSO, which hints at scope but doesn't detail behavioral traits like rate limits, auth needs, or output format. With annotations covering safety, this is 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (1 optional parameter, read-only, with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the resource and context (Cisco NSO), and the output schema will handle return values. However, it lacks usage guidelines, which slightly reduces completeness for agent decision-making.

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?

The input schema has one parameter with 0% description coverage and no enums, but the parameter is optional (required: 0) and defaults to null. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is acceptable here since the tool likely requires no inputs for its basic function. This compensates for the low schema coverage by implying simplicity.

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 action ('Retrieve') and resource ('available Network Element Driver (NED) IDs'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_device_platform' or 'get_device_state', which might also retrieve device-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone. This is a significant gap for effective tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.