malcolm_netbox_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, safe, or if it requires any permissions. No details on rate limits or response structure.

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 concise, with a clear opening sentence and a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value, though the Args section could be more streamlined.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks mention of error cases or what happens when no results are found. The constraint 'at least one parameter' is useful but not exhaustive.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds example values and states that at least one parameter must be provided, which is not in the schema. However, it does not explain each parameter's role beyond basic identification (e.g., 'IP address to look up').

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 clearly states the verb 'look up' and the resource 'asset information from NetBox via Malcolm'. It also specifies the context: device/IP role and network segment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like malcolm_ping or malcolm_search.

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 mentions it is critical for determining normal vs anomalous behavior, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many sibling tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use advice.

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