generate_inventory_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (Markdown) and coverage (every AP and switch) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, or the behavior when org_id is omitted (e.g., uses active org). These are material behavioral traits for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

Single sentence, grammatically clear, front-loaded with the main verb 'Generate' and immediately specifies the output format and data fields. No filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, output format, and included data. However, it could mention the default organization behavior and any limitations, but overall it is fairly complete.

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 schema provides a 100% description for org_id, making the parameter self-explanatory. The tool description does not add any further semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states it generates a full device inventory report in Markdown, enumerating specific fields (model, serial, MAC, site, status, firmware version) for both APs and switches. This distinguishes it from sibling report tools because it covers the full inventory.

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 implies the use case—when you need a comprehensive inventory report—but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_access_points or generate_health_report. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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