pve_sdn_fabric_status_neighbors

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

The description goes beyond basic functionality by disclosing that data is 'self-announced by the remote peer' and warns that content could be compromised by a malicious peer. Since no annotations are provided, this behavioral context is valuable for agent decision-making.

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, using two sentences to convey purpose and a critical security warning. Every phrase 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?

The description identifies returned fields (neighbor/status/uptime) and includes a behavioral warning about untrusted data. Given the presence of an output schema, it does not need to detail return types. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or default node behavior.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no significant parameter details beyond the schema. It mentions 'on one node' but does not clarify the node parameter format or the behavior when omitted. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves 'all neighbors for a fabric on one node' and specifies the data fields (neighbor/status/uptime). It clearly identifies the resource ('fabric neighbors') and verb ('get'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pve_sdn_fabric_status_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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the 'READ-ONLY' prefix and resource name imply it is for neighbor status, there is no direct comparison to sibling status tools (e.g., pve_sdn_fabric_status_routes) or mention of prerequisites.

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