get_bare_metal_neighbors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the 'smart identifier resolution' behavior (accepting label, hostname, or UUID) which is valuable context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies it).

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information. The two-sentence main description front-loads the essential 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 operation with no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate context. It explains what the tool does, parameter semantics, and return type. However, it lacks details about the return format (structure of neighbor objects) and any limitations or edge cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description compensates well by explaining the 'server_identifier' parameter accepts multiple formats (label, hostname, or ID). This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema's basic string type, though it doesn't specify 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get neighbors') and resource ('for a bare metal server'), with explicit scope ('other servers on same physical host'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_bare_metal_server' by focusing on neighbor relationships rather than individual server details.

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 implies usage when needing neighbor information for a bare metal server, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_bare_metal_servers' or 'get_bare_metal_server_summary'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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