mcp-infoblox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what information is returned, not behavioral traits. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The mention of 'DHCP utilization statistics' adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation-free tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific network') and adds a specific detail ('including DHCP utilization statistics'). There is zero waste or redundancy.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters. It doesn't explain the return values beyond mentioning 'DHCP utilization statistics', leaving the agent uncertain about what data is returned, format, or potential errors. For a read operation with full schema coverage but missing output details, this is inadequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (ref and return_fields). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of network references or field names. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific network', including the specific detail of 'DHCP utilization statistics'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_networks (plural) by specifying a single network, but doesn't explicitly contrast with get_object_by_ref which might also retrieve network details.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when to use get_network_details versus get_networks (for listing) or get_object_by_ref (for generic object retrieval), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a network reference.

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