get_bgp_config

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Show' plus the enumerated contents imply a non-destructive read that returns a config object, which is useful, but it says nothing about permission requirements, what happens if BGP is not configured, or whether the response is a single object or a list.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the returned fields parenthetically scoped. No filler, though it is terse enough to leave obvious gaps rather than covering them efficiently.

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 simple two-parameter read-only getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is close to sufficient: the parenthetical field list effectively stands in for a return-value description. Missing are only error/absent-config behavior and vdom scoping, which are minor for this tool class.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both device_id and vdom documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics — neither parameter is referenced, and the meaning of the nullable vdom default is left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('BGP configuration'), and enumerates the contents (AS, router-id, neighbors, networks), so an agent can tell it apart from routing siblings like get_ospf_config or get_routing_table. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the resource noun is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as get_routing_table or lookup_route, no mention of prerequisites (a valid device_id), and no note on vdom selection behavior. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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