get_bgp_neighbors

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

Description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns a dict (not a list envelope), reads only the gateway's FIRST locale-service, and returns a hint (not an error) when no locale-service exists. These specifics are not predictable from annotations alone and improve transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose line, usage context, return format, edge-case caveat, and alternative tool references. Every sentence adds value, and the content is front-loaded with the most important 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 read-only tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, return shape, edge cases, and related tools. It fully addresses the context needed for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, even without an output schema.

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%, so the description must carry the burden. It does: 'tier0_id: Tier-0 gateway ID, as returned by list_tier0_gateways' and 'target: NSX Manager target from config (default if omitted).' These provide provenance and default behavior, adding clear meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get BGP configuration and neighbor status for a Tier-0 gateway.' This clearly defines the tool's scope and distinguishes it from siblings like configure_tier0_bgp (write operation) and get_edge_cluster_status (infrastructure status).

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Use this to verify dynamic routing after configure_tier0_bgp, or when troubleshooting north-south connectivity.' It also names alternatives for related cases: 'If sessions are down, check get_edge_cluster_status' and 'Static routes are listed separately by list_static_routes.'

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