router_bgp_get

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, required permissions, or potential side effects. The word 'Get' implies a safe read, but this is not explicitly confirmed.

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?

Single sentence containing all essential information without any fluff. Perfectly concise for a simple get tool with one optional parameter.

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 output schema exists and the tool is straightforward, the description is largely sufficient. However, it could explicitly state that it retrieves the full current BGP configuration, not just the listed aspects.

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 coverage is 100% with the vdom parameter already well-described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, achieving baseline score.

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?

Description explicitly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'BGP routing configuration', listing specific components (ASN, peers, networks, redistribute). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like router_ospf_get or router_rip_get.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as router_bgp_update or other router get tools. Missing context about prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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