get_connectivity_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and it does so well: it states the read-only nature, bounded scope, exact-site matching, and that no routed path is claimed. It omits details such as auth or result-when-absent, but preserves the key safety and expectation-setting traits.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the core purpose and then cover boundary behavior. There is no filler or repetition of schema data.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description supplies operation type, scope, read-only guarantee, and a key limitation (no runtime routed path). An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret its results.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds that the two sites must be exact and direct evidence is returned, but it never names fromSite/toSite or explains their expected format, leaving some meaning to be inferred from the parameter names.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('bounded NetBox circuit and VPN evidence') connecting two exact sites. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling context/rack/device/power tools.

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?

It communicates that the tool is for direct, exact site-to-site circuit/VPN evidence, not a runtime routed-path checker. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, but the scope and explicit non-claim give usable selection guidance.

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