List NetBox sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it returns a 'condensed view' keyed by site id with only display, name, and slug, omitting status/tenant/counts. It also explains how to distinguish an empty directory from an absent NetBox subsystem via malcolm_service_status, going well beyond the annotation safety hints.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, then provides usage guidance, return format, and operational context in a logical flow. Every sentence adds distinct value: it explains what the tool returns, what it deliberately omits, and how to handle the optional NetBox subsystem. Despite being longer than typical, it is dense and free of fluff.

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 and a relatively simple zero-parameter list operation, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the return object shape, the fields included, the limitations, the path to get full records, and the distinction between empty and unavailable systems. No missing context is evident.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-specific semantics, and it appropriately omits any parameter discussion. The schema coverage is 100% by virtue of having no parameters, and the description's focus on the result format is more relevant here.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the NetBox site directory: the physical or logical locations assets sit in.' It explicitly differentiates from siblings by directing users to malcolm_netbox_lookup for device/IP/prefix resolution and malcolm_netbox_query for other NetBox endpoints, making the tool's unique role clear.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this to learn which sites exist before drilling into a specific asset') and names concrete alternatives for follow-up actions. It also states when to use a different tool for full site records, offering clear decision-making guidance.

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