get_bgp_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but never states that it is read-only, what permissions or device reachability are required, or what the response contains.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though also under-specified rather than richly concise.

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 one-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. It remains thin on scope—such as whether the summary is per-VRF, IPv4/IPv6, or session-state oriented—and on return behavior.

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 100% for the single device_id parameter, so the schema already documents the accepted ID formats. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline is 3 when the schema is complete.

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 summary'. An agent can tell it retrieves BGP summary data, but the description does not distinguish it from closely related siblings such as get_bgp_neighbors or get_bgp_routes.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_bgp_neighbors or get_bgp_routes, and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions are mentioned. Usage must be inferred from the tool name alone.

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