list_fttx_infrastructure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the hierarchical drilling pattern and the caution about error handling. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, if it requires special permissions, or what happens when parent_id is omitted alongside resource_type (e.g., for 'backbones'). A 3 is appropriate as basic behavioral context is present but safety and side-effects are unaddressed.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose and resource types, and uses an emoji and bold to highlight the critical caution about data fabrication. It is efficient and communicates key information without waste, though the second sentence could be more terse.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of objects, summary counts). It does not, leaving return format ambiguous. Parameter documentation is adequate, and the usage context (hierarchical querying) is clear. The tool has moderate complexity (2 parameters, multiple resource types, hierarchical relationships) and the description covers the usage pattern but not the output, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parent_id interacts with resource_type for hierarchy traversal, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not describe the meaning or format of returned data fields or the 'seals' resource type in detail, so it does not elevate above baseline.

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 uses a clear verb ('Query') and specific resource ('FTTx fiber infrastructure'), and then enumerates the sub-resource types (backbones, PONs, NAP boxes, ports, and seals). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_clients or list_internet_connections by focusing on physical fiber infrastructure, though it could more explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_fttx_trace which also touches FTTx.

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 states how to use resource_type and parent_id to traverse the hierarchy (backbone→PONs→boxes→ports). It also warns against fabricating data when the tool fails. However, it does not specify when NOT to use this tool versus siblings like get_network_element or get_fttx_trace, omitting explicit exclusions.

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