get_power_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly states that the tool performs no write operations and never claims live electrical state, which is strong behavioral disclosure. It does not address edge behaviors such as missing parameters or error handling, but the core safety and data-fidelity caveats are present.

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 one clean, front-loaded sentence with a follow-up caveat. Every clause contributes: the resource scope, the specific evidence returned, the read-only behavior, and the live-state limitation. There is no redundant 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?

Given the output schema exists and the tool is a simple read-only query, the description covers scope, safety, and data limitations well. The main remaining gap is the absence of parameter guidance for id/name, but otherwise the description is substantially complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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 0%, so the description must explain what id and name mean, but it does not. It only says the tool looks at 'one exact device,' leaving unclear whether id is a device ID, whether name is a device name, whether either is sufficient, or whether both are needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a precise resource: bounded NetBox inventory evidence for what powers one exact device, listing power ports, cabled PDU outlets, and rack power feeds. This clearly separates it from the sibling tools focused on device context, site overview, rack context, and connectivity paths.

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 gives clear context about what data the tool returns and explicitly excludes live electrical state and write operations, signaling when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state a direct 'use this when...' condition, so it falls just short of a 5.

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