lldp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Show LLDP neighbor table,' implying a read operation but providing no details about output format, potential side effects, or required conditions (e.g., LLDP must be enabled). This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 very concise (one short sentence). While it earns its place by stating the tool's action, it could be more informative without being verbose. For example, adding 'Lists LLDP neighbors on all interfaces' would maintain conciseness while improving completeness. Currently, it is adequate but minimal.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., LLDP enabled), output structure, or any limitations. For a simple tool, this is incomplete.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description does not add parameter semantics because none exist, so the score remains 4.

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 'Show LLDP neighbor table' clearly states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('LLDP neighbor table'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'arp' or 'dhcp' which deal with different network tables.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description lacks any context about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to check LLDP neighbors instead of ARP or DHCP tables. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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