get_eigrp_neighbors

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden. It only states the purpose and command, implying a read-only operation but not explicitly disclosing behavior like error handling, permission requirements, or that no changes are made. The inclusion of the exact command adds a small amount of context, but significant behavioral aspects remain undisclosed.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and command. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and direct.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is minimally viable. It clearly identifies the purpose and command, but lacks usage guidance and behavioral details. Since the output schema exists, return value documentation is not needed, but the absence of any guidance on when to use the tool or prerequisites keeps this from being fully complete.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'device' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description does not explain the 'device' parameter or its possible values. The command implies that 'device' is the target device, but this is not explicit, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('EIGRP neighbors'), and includes the underlying command ('show ip eigrp neighbors'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ospf_neighbors or get_cdp_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?

The description implies usage: use this tool when you need EIGRP neighbor information. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it, alternative tools, or prerequisites such as EIGRP being configured.

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