router_neighbors

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

The description reinforces the annotations by stating the operation uses 'fixed read-only ip commands' and returns 'current' tables, conveying determinism and non-mutating behavior. This adds context beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, though it does not describe potential edge cases like empty tables or command failures.

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 front-loads the action and resource, then adds the read-only execution detail. Every element earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent lookup tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It identifies the exact data returned and the read-only nature of the operation, though a bit more detail about the output shape or command behavior could further help, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity and annotations.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already documents this completely. With no parameters to explain, the description appropriately focuses on what the command fetches rather than parameter details, exceeding the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 states the specific verb 'Get', the resource ('current IPv4 ARP and IPv6 NDP neighbor tables'), and the mechanism ('two fixed read-only ip commands'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like router_routes or router_known_hosts by naming the exact neighbor-table data being fetched.

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 makes clear what the tool retrieves, so an agent can infer when to use it for neighbor table information. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as router_routes or router_known_hosts, and it provides no exclusion criteria.

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