bgp_neighbor_rca

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It explicitly marks as [READ], details the process of pulling data and reporting findings, and mentions the target parameter. Does not discuss cost or permissions, but sufficient for the tool's simple read-only nature.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured: a [READ] tag, one-line summary, explanatory paragraph, and Args section. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers functionality (flagging issues, worst-first reporting, causes/actions) and parameter usage completely.

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 description compensates with 'target: Device name from config; omit to use the default device.' This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's type and default, explaining how to use the parameter.

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?

Clearly states it flags BGP neighbors that are down, shut, reset, or route-less, distinguishing from sibling tools like get_bgp_neighbors which only fetch data. The verb 'flag' and resource 'BGP neighbors' are specific.

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?

Describes what it does (pulls get_bgp_neighbors and reports findings) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_bgp_neighbors_detail or interface_health_rca. No 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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