interface_status

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the '[READ]' tag is redundant. However, the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotation: it explains that the whole table is fetched and ranked before the cut, making `truncated: true` a measured rather than inferred signal. That is a real disclosure an agent would not get from structured fields.

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 read tag and resource, then a tightly worded note on the truncation flag, then an Args block. Every sentence carries information; the truncation explanation is verbose but earns its place by clarifying semantics an agent could otherwise misread.

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, two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, both parameters, and the one non-obvious return behavior (the truncated flag). Return shape is otherwise unexplained, but the tool's simplicity makes that a minor gap.

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 carries the full burden and largely meets it: `top` is documented as top-N by peak utilization, and `target` as a SolarWinds target name from config with the default omitted. This compensates well for the empty schema, though the expected type/format of `target` values is not illustrated.

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+resource ('Interface status + utilization') and pins the backing data source (Orion.NPM.Interfaces), which cleanly separates it from the parallel node_status, volume_status and application_status siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or the topn tool as alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated in text.

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 explains what `top` does mechanically but never states when to use this tool versus node_status, volume_status, application_status or topn, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the selection context 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.