get_bgp_neighbors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only lookup, but nothing is said about return shape, whether results are live-cached, or behavior when BGP is not enabled on the device.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler and the resource/scoping front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than discipline.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should convey what a 'neighbor' record contains (peer address, AS, state, uptime) to let an agent judge relevance against get_bgp_routes/get_bgp_summary. It says nothing about return content.

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% and the single parameter (device_id, accepting ID or system-ip) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get BGP neighbors') scoped to a device, which is unambiguous about what it returns. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_bgp_routes and get_bgp_summary, which an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_bgp_routes or get_bgp_summary, nor any prerequisites (e.g., whether the device must have BGP configured). The device scoping is only implied by the parameter name.

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