get_bgp_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. The word 'Show' implies a read-only operation, which is the main behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly mention that it is non-destructive or that it requires BGP to be configured on the device. This is adequate but minimal.

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, efficient sentence that includes the key command. No wasted words; it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 (one parameter, output schema present), the description is nearly complete. It names the exact command and resource. Missing a bit of context about when the tool applies (e.g., devices with BGP enabled), but for a simple show command, it is largely sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the 'device' parameter at all. While the parameter name 'device' is self-explanatory and there is only one parameter, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's purpose from its name.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('BGP peer summary'), and includes the exact command ('show ip bgp summary'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ospf_neighbors or get_eigrp_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_show_command or other neighbor-specific tools. The description implies a standard network operation but does not state any exclusions or preferred contexts.

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