vyos_bgp_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only (command 'show bgp summary'), specifies the output contents, and explicitly describes the error response when BGP is not running. This provides good behavioral transparency beyond a simple command name.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the command and purpose, followed by output details and error behavior. Every sentence adds value without 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 that there are no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, output content, and error condition. It is fairly complete, though it could briefly mention that it shows all BGP peers, but 'per peer' already implies that.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter information, but it adds value by explaining the tool's purpose and output. Baseline 3 is elevated to 4 because the description effectively compensates for the absence of parameters.

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 it shows BGP neighbor summary with the explicit command equivalent, specifies the output fields (neighbor state, uptime, prefixes received), and distinguishes by noting it covers all address families. It is distinct from sibling tools due to the BGP-specific focus.

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 provides context that it is most useful on routers running BGP and warns that if BGP is not running, an error is returned. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to sibling tools like vyos_show or vyos_interface_stats, nor does it offer alternative tools.

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