switch_show_neighbors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the operation is 'Show', which implies read-only, but it doesn't mention any caveats such as supported device models, permissions required, availability of CDP/LLDP on the specific switch, or what the output format is. This leaves the agent without needed context beyond the obvious.

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 single, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word adds value.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main purpose and scope. It could mention what the returned neighbor data includes (e.g., device IDs, interfaces), but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the absence of complex requirements.

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 schema already provides full coverage for the single 'device_id' parameter with a description ('Switch device ID'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so it aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource ('CDP (Cisco) or LLDP (HP) neighbor discovery') and the target device ('switch'). It is distinct from sibling tools like switch_show_interfaces or switch_show_mac_table, making its purpose 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?

The context is clear: use this tool to display neighbor discovery information on a switch. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the vendor/protocol detail (CDP for Cisco, LLDP for HP) provides practical guidance. This meets the 'clear context' level, though not 'explicit alternatives'.

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