Query NetBox endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds context by stating the tool uses a 'read-only GET proxy' and validates the path before proxying, with raw JSON returned. This is valuable beyond the annotations, though annotations already cover the core safety profile.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: main action, when to use, alternatives, validation details, return type. No wasted words, well structured.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present, annotations covering safety), the description is complete. It covers the core functionality, usage context, validation behavior, and return format. There are no gaps for an agent to make a mistake.

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% for both parameters (path and params), with detailed schema descriptions. The tool description does not add significant additional meaning for parameters beyond noting that the path is validated and that the response is raw JSON. With full schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool queries any NetBox REST endpoint via a read-only GET proxy. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning alternatives like malcolm_netbox_lookup and malcolm_netbox_sites, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: as an escape hatch for endpoints not covered by shortcuts. It also provides clear alternatives for common lookups (prefer malcolm_netbox_lookup) and listing sites (use malcolm_netbox_sites), leaving no ambiguity.

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