get_cdp_neighbors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose this is a read-only operation via the verb 'Show' and specifies the exact command, which adds transparency about the underlying behavior. However, it does not mention limitations, prerequisites, or any side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence that includes the command name in parentheses for clarity. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so return format explanation is unnecessary. However, the description lacks contextual details such as when to use this tool versus LLDP or EIGRP, and it does not mention any prerequisites or environmental considerations. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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% and the description does not explain the 'device' parameter. While the parameter name is relatively self-explanatory, the description provides no context on how to specify the device or any additional details beyond the schema field 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 uses a specific verb 'Show' and identifies the resource as 'directly connected Cisco neighbors', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_eigrp_neighbors and get_lldp_neighbors. The underlying command 'show cdp neighbors detail' further solidifies the tool's purpose.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving CDP neighbor information but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like LLDP or EIGRP. There is no mention of scenarios where CDP is preferred or when it should not be used.

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