apic_get_lldp_neighbors

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

Discloses the 50-item limit when no node_id is specified, which is a useful behavioral constraint. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Lacks details on permissions or rate limits, but is otherwise honest.

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 short paragraph with clear sections: purpose, parameter explanation, return value summary, and use case. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main aspects: purpose, parameter, return fields, and a usage hint. It could be more explicit about the actual data structure (e.g., list of objects), but it is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke the tool.

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 only parameter, node_id, is explained as an optional filter; the description clarifies the default behavior (all nodes) and the limit (50). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, which has no description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.

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?

Clearly states 'Retrieve LLDP neighbors discovered on fabric nodes.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like apic_get_fabric_topology or apic_get_physical_interfaces.

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?

Mentions 'Useful for understanding physical topology,' providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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