Netbox Graphql Query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by naming the endpoint, disclosing that mutations/subscriptions are rejected, and stating a pagination requirement. It does not mention auth requirements or result-size limits, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is, then when to use it, then hard constraints, then a practical tip. Nothing is wasted, though the pagination example partially overlaps the schema's own query example.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies endpoint, rejection semantics and pagination guidance, leaving only auth/permission and rate-limit behavior unstated for a fully complete picture.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above it by adding a concrete pagination usage pattern (device_list(pagination: {limit: 50})) that shows how to shape the query argument. It does not discuss the variables parameter at all, leaving one of the two params to the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb (run), a specific artifact (read-only GraphQL query) and the exact endpoint (/graphql/), which cleanly separates it from the REST-oriented siblings like netbox_get_objects and netbox_list_object_types. An agent knows immediately this is the GraphQL escape hatch rather than a generic object fetcher.

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?

"Use it to fetch nested data that would otherwise need many REST calls" gives a clear positive selection criterion, and "Mutations and subscriptions are rejected" bounds what it can do. It stops short of naming the sibling to prefer when nested traversal is not needed, so no explicit alternative is offered.

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