List Neighbors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., no mention of required permissions, default return behavior, or pagination). It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal value.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core functionality without any superfluous words. It is front-loaded and concise.

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 list tool with an output schema absent, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and scope. It could mention default behavior (e.g., returns all neighbors if no filter) but overall is sufficient given the annotations and schema richness.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters (routerId, interface, limit). The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 explicitly states the action (list), the resource (discovered neighbors), and the specific protocols (CDP/LLDP/MNDP) on a MikroTik router. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_ospf_neighbors or list_bgp_peers.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_ospf_neighbors, list_bgp_peers). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints to help an agent decide.

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