get_lldp_neighbors

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. While '[READ]' implies a read-only operation, there is no mention of idempotency, safety, error handling, or what happens if the target is unreachable. The description does not disclose potential side effects or permission requirements.

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 lines for the purpose and one line for the argument. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no superfluous text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides the essential purpose and argument meaning. However, it could be more complete by explaining the behavior when target is null (e.g., returns neighbors for all devices) and by describing the return format. The completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 only parameter 'target' has 0% schema description coverage. The description line 'target: Device name from config' adds some semantic value by indicating the parameter's source (config) and type (device name), but it does not explain what values are valid, the meaning of null, or formatting requirements. Baseline for 0% coverage is 4, but the minimal addition reduces the score to 3.

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 starts with '[READ] LLDP neighbors: local port, remote hostname, remote port,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as a read operation and specifies the data returned. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_lldp_neighbors_detail' which likely provides more 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_lldp_neighbors_detail' or other read tools. The description lacks information about prerequisites, order of operations, or situational context.

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