get_bgp_neighbors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the '[READ]' tag merely reinforces that. The description adds useful non-obvious context by naming the returned data ('peer, remote AS, up state, prefix counts'), which helps the agent know what it will get back even without an output schema, though it says nothing about auth, scope, or pagination.

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?

Tight and front-loaded: the '[READ]' prefix and purpose sentence come first, then a compact args block. No filler, though it is arguably too sparse rather than genuinely optimized.

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 read tool with no output schema, listing returned fields is the right compensation, and the lone parameter is documented. But it omits any differentiation from get_bgp_neighbors_detail and provides no scope or prerequisite context, leaving clear gaps for an agent choosing among siblings.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the param burden, and it does document the single 'target' param as the device name from config. That is enough to be usable but adds no format, required/optional, or default semantics beyond the schema's own 'default: null'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('BGP neighbors per VRF') and lists the returned fields (peer, remote AS, up state, prefix counts), so the agent knows exactly what this fetches. However, it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling get_bgp_neighbors_detail, which an agent would have to open both schemas to disambiguate.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling get_bgp_neighbors_detail that covers a related read. The '[READ]' tag implies a read-only lookup, but nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice over alternatives.

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