get_lldp_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 discloses the underlying command ('show lldp neighbors detail'), which is useful for understanding the operation's nature. However, it does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, or any device-side impact—though none are expected for a read-only show command. The output schema covers return structure, so that gap is mitigated.

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 states the action, target, and a key differentiator without redundancy. It is both concise and structurally efficient.

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 a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It provides the essential command and differentiator, but lacks explicit usage guidance (e.g., 'use when LLDP is configured') and does not explain the device parameter. These gaps make it minimally viable rather than fully 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?

The schema has zero description coverage for the single 'device' parameter, and the description does not mention this parameter at all. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage gap.

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 ('LLDP neighbors'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('including non-Cisco devices') that separates it from sibling tools like CDP and EIGRP neighbor tools. It references the exact command ('show lldp neighbors detail'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'including non-Cisco devices' implies this tool is preferred over CDP when dealing with multi-vendor environments, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools by name, leaving some room for interpretation.

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