get_bgp_neighbors

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

The '[READ]' prefix explicitly indicates a read-only operation, and the description specifies the fields returned. For a simple tool, this is good transparency. However, no annotations are present, so the description carries full burden, and it lacks discussion of potential exceptions or authorization needs.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary words.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. It outlines the returned fields, but missing guidance on usage contexts and return format limits completeness slightly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains the sole parameter 'target' as 'Device name from config', adding meaning. However, it does not mention whether it is required (schema says optional) or provide format constraints, so compensation is adequate but minimal.

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 ('READ'), resource ('BGP neighbors'), and what is returned ('peer, remote AS, up state, prefix counts'). The prefix '[READ]' and scope 'per VRF' differentiate it from sibling tools like get_bgp_neighbors_detail.

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 use for summary BGP neighbor data per VRF but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_bgp_neighbors_detail or bgp_neighbor_rca. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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