Netbox Get Object

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on error behavior for missing IDs, response size characteristics, or how 'brief'/'fields' interact with payload cost.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the essential identity of the tool leads the description. It is efficient, though so sparse that it reads as under-specified rather than deliberately trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the input schema is fully documented, meaning the core call path is covered. What is missing is context an agent needs for correct selection — the relationship to netbox_search_objects/netbox_get_objects and when a single fetch is the wrong 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 100%, and the schema itself is unusually rich (it documents omit, brief, fields with examples, token-cost warnings, and the app.model vs API-path formats for object_type). The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get'), resource ('NetBox object'), and scope ('one ... by type and ID'), which implicitly separates it from the plural netbox_get_objects and netbox_search_objects. It never names an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as netbox_search_objects (when the ID is unknown) or netbox_get_objects (for multiple records). 'By type and ID' is a precondition already enforced by the required schema fields, not guidance.

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