get_bgp_neighbors

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds behavioral details: 'No side effects,' specifics on what is read (first locale-service, BGP config, neighbors, session state where available), and mentions failure response format. It does not contradict annotations.

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 and concise. It begins with a purpose tag '[READ]', followed by side-effect statement, usage guidance, details of data read, return fields, failure format, and parameter descriptions. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers all relevant aspects: purpose, usage, behavioral transparency, parameter semantics, return fields, and error handling. It mentions limitations (e.g., first locale-service, session state where available). Given no output schema, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: tier0_id as 'Tier-0 gateway ID, as returned by list_tier0_gateways' and target as 'NSX Manager name from config.yaml. Uses the default target if omitted.' This provides meaningful usage context beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get BGP configuration and neighbor status for a Tier-0 gateway.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on BGP specifics versus general gateway info. The verb 'get' and resource 'BGP neighbors' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says when to use: 'Use to verify dynamic routing after configure_tier0_bgp or when troubleshooting north-south connectivity.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use. However, the contrast with configure_tier0_bgp (a write operation) is implied.

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