vsz_list_ap_lldp_neighbors

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 discloses that the tool returns a list of neighbors with specific fields, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication requirements, or error handling. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but more transparency about side effects or prerequisites would be better.

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 and structured well: a one-sentence purpose, a return-value sentence, and an Args list. Every sentence contributes value, though it could be slightly tighter by merging the first two sentences. Overall, it is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

For a simple two-parameter list tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description provides adequate context: what it does, what it returns, and the parameters. It doesn't mention pagination or edge cases, but given the likely small result set and existing output schema, this is sufficient.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates with an Args section explaining both parameters. 'host: vSZ controller IP or hostname' and 'ap_mac: AP MAC address (e.g. ...)' add meaning beyond the plain schema, including an example for ap_mac. This is excellent parameter documentation.

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 'Get LLDP neighbor devices discovered by an AP' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like vsz_list_ap_mesh_neighbors by explicitly focusing on LLDP neighbors. It also lists the specific returned fields, leaving no ambiguity about purpose.

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 implies when to use the tool (to retrieve LLDP neighbors for a specific AP) and the context is clear from the function name and description. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is evident without requiring additional guidance.

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