bare_metal_get_bare_metal_neighbors

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly identifies the operation as non-mutating ('Get' and 'Returns'), clarifies available identifier forms ('server label, hostname, or UUID'), and describes the output shape. It does not mention error conditions or authorization, but for a simple read operation this is acceptable.

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 tightly formatted: a one-sentence purpose, a note on identifier resolution, an Args section, and a Returns section. No filler or redundancy. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 single-parameter read tool with output schema, the description covers the action, accepted parameter forms, and the nature of the return value. It does not state what happens on invalid/unknown identifiers or whether authentication is required, but these are minor gaps given the simplicity of the tool.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that server_identifier accepts a label, hostname, or UUID/ID, giving the agent concrete valid input types. This goes well beyond the bare 'string' type in the schema, though it lacks format examples or validation rules.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('neighbors ... for a bare metal server'), and defines the concept immediately ('other servers on same physical host'). It is distinct from sibling tools like bare_metal_get_bare_metal_server or bare_metal_list_bare_metal_servers because it specifically targets physical-host neighbors.

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 purpose implies when to use it: when a user needs servers sharing the same physical host as a given bare metal server. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the specialized scope is clear enough to route an agent correctly among the bare_metal sibling set.

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