get_lldp_neighbors_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only discloses the read-only nature via '[READ]' but does not explain other behaviors like return format, pagination, or performance implications. For a detailed tool, more behavioral context is needed.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and uses a clear structure with an Args section. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lists returned fields but does not describe the output structure, pagination, error conditions, or any permissions needed. For a tool with one optional parameter, more detail is expected.

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 sole parameter 'target' is explained as 'Device name from config,' adding meaning beyond the schema which only gives type and default. With 0% schema description coverage, this minimal explanation is helpful, though it could be more precise (e.g., format or examples).

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 retrieves detailed LLDP neighbor information including chassis id, system name/description, and capabilities. It uses the verb 'get' and specifies the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_lldp_neighbors (likely summary) and get_bgp_neighbors.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like get_lldp_neighbors (presumably a summary) and other network tools, the description does not differentiate usage scenarios or mention prerequisites.

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