monitor_network_lldp_neighbors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', implying read-only, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention performance considerations, error conditions, or authentication requirements.

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 with a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. There is no wasted text.

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 is an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details. For a simple read-only tool with a single parameter, it is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 is only one parameter (vdom) and the schema already includes a detailed description for it. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'LLDP neighbor information', and the scope 'discovered on all interfaces'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like monitor_network_arp_list which covers ARP entries.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context on prerequisites or limitations. It merely states what it does without any usage recommendations.

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