ipv6_neighbors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a real behavioral trait: it returns an empty list rather than an error when the ipv6 package is disabled. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs. It stops short of describing other traits (e.g. whether it is read-only — though 'List' implies it, or pagination) so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, then field list, then the important empty-list caveat. Only the README cross-reference is slightly extraneous, but it earns its place by anchoring versioned behavior.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description adds the empty-list behavior and the arp_table parallel — the two things structured fields don't convey. Complete enough for an agent to call it correctly; only explicit usage routing is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (device_name) at 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't explain device_name, but with a single, self-evidently named required parameter the baseline is 4 and there's little semantic gap to close.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the IPv6 neighbor discovery table') and enumerates the returned fields. Crucially, it names the differentiator against the sibling arp_table, framing this as the IPv6 counterpart to that IPv4 table, so an agent can pick between them without reading schemas.

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?

Usage is implied by the arp_table analogy and the field list, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to the IPv4 arp_table for v4 queries. Adequate but leaves selection to inference.

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