Netbox Trace Cable

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the hop-by-hop segment structure (near end, cable, far end) and that pass-through ports return multiple paths as node lists, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then split into the two behavioral modes. Every clause adds information about what the tool returns or how it behaves.

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, the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it correctly focuses on explaining the path semantics and the two modes of operation. Combined with rich annotations and complete parameter docs, the description provides everything needed to invoke and interpret 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 100%. The description explains what the object_type/object_id pair represents (a starting port) and lists the valid port types, but the enum already documents all 10 options. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully describes the parameters.

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 (trace) and resource (cable paths), and explains the domain: from a port through patch panels and circuits. Clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like netbox_get_object and netbox_graphql_query which don't perform path tracing.

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 explains the two operational modes: tracing from an interface/console/power port to its far end, and tracing all paths through a pass-through port. This implicitly tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, though it doesn't name alternative tools like netbox_get_objects for non-path queries.

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