show_device_neighbors

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It informs that the tool lists neighbors via LLDP/CDP, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication needs, or performance impacts beyond the obvious.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The 'Args' section is slightly redundant given the schema, but overall it is concise without unnecessary detail.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and existence of an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks guidance on when to use this tool over similar siblings and does not specify the output format. It meets the minimum requirements but leaves room for improvement.

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 0%, so the description must add value for the single parameter 'device'. It provides 'Name of the device', which is a minimal but sufficient clarification of what is expected. The parameter name is self-explanatory, so the description adds marginal improvement.

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 states 'Show all discovered neighbors for a specific device' and mentions the protocols (LLDP/CDP). The verb and resource are clear, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'show_lldp_neighbors', which might have a more specific scope.

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 like 'show_lldp_neighbors' or 'show_topology'. The description does not mention exclusions or when not to use it.

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