show_ospf_neighbors

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

Describes return values (states, interfaces, dead intervals) but does not disclose read-only nature, permissions, or potential side effects. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden; it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Extremely concise; two sentences plus a parameter line. Front-loaded with purpose. No redundant information.

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 an output schema exists, return value description is sufficient. Covers key aspects (states, interfaces, dead intervals). Could mention device existence requirement, but not critical for a straightforward show command.

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?

Only parameter 'device' is described with context 'as defined in devices.yaml,' adding value beyond the schema's basic type. With 0% schema coverage, this compensates well for a single parameter.

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 'Show OSPF neighbor adjacencies on a network device.' with specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like show_bgp_neighbors or show_lldp_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?

Implies usage for OSPF neighbor adjacency, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., show_bgp_neighbors) or when not to use. No prerequisites or context provided.

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