Netbox Search Objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: results are keyed by object type, and the '_meta' key semantics distinguish 'errors' (treat as unknown, not as no-match) from 'truncated' (full count per type) — an important disclosure about partial-failure behavior that the annotations do not carry.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the failure-mode semantics following immediately. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is padding.

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 shape needn't be re-explained, yet the description still clarifies the keyed-by-type result and _meta semantics. The remaining gap is selection guidance against the many sibling read tools, which an agent must infer.

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%, so the schema already documents query, limit, fields, and object_types (including the default type list and the token-cost warning for 'fields'). The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search several NetBox object types at once with NetBox's q filter'), which is clear and concrete. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like netbox_get_objects or netbox_graphql_query, leaving the agent to infer that this is the free-text, multi-type search variant.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for free-text cross-type lookups, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. netbox_get_objects for filtered queries or netbox_graphql_query for complex queries). The _meta guidance is about interpreting results, not about selecting this tool.

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