get_bgp_neighbors_detail

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

The description includes a [READ] prefix, indicating a safe operation, but provides no further behavioral traits such as performance, pagination, error handling, or whether it returns all VRFs or requires filtering. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and is insufficient.

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?

Extremely concise: one line for the tool purpose and one line for the parameter description. No fluff, front-loaded with the most important information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks clarity on VRF scope (all VRFs or specific) and output format. The ambiguity about 'per VRF' reduces completeness. Given the low complexity, a score of 3 reflects the gap.

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 single parameter 'target' is described in the description: 'Device name from config; omit to use the default device.' This adds meaning beyond the schema (which has no parameter descriptions), clarifying it is optional and its purpose. For one parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description adequately compensates.

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 it reads detailed BGP neighbors per VRF with specific fields (state, router id, AS, prefix stats). While it distinguishes from siblings like get_bgp_neighbors (implied summary), it does not explicitly contrast them, leaving slight ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_bgp_neighbors or bgp_neighbor_rca. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions mentioned.

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