List OSPF Neighbors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds context: RouterOS version constraint and return fields (state, interface, DR/BDR, uptime). No contradictions. Adds value beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no excess verbiage. Efficiently communicates purpose and key details.

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 list tool with good annotations and fully described parameters, the description is adequate. It explains purpose and return fields. However, no mention of pagination or limits, but it's a simple query.

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 descriptions for both parameters. Description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'List', resource 'OSPF neighbors', and includes details like RouterOS 7+ and return fields (state, interface, DR/BDR, uptime). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_neighbors' by specifying OSPF.

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?

Description implies usage for listing OSPF neighbors on MikroTik but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., list_neighbors for generic discovery). Sibling differentiation is implicit.

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