get_interfaces

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

No annotations are provided, but description starts with '[READ]' indicating read-only behavior. No destructive side effects implied. However, missing details on authentication or rate limits, which could be relevant for an agent.

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?

Very concise with two sentences. Front-loaded with '[READ]' and attribute list. No wasted words.

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?

Lists returned attributes but omits return format (e.g., list or dict). No output schema available. With minimal parameters and complexity, description is adequate but could be more complete by specifying output structure.

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%, but description adds meaning: 'target: Device name from config' clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's generic string type.

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?

Description clearly states verb '[READ]' and resource 'Interfaces' with specific attributes (up/down state, enabled flag, speed, description). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_interfaces_counters or get_interfaces_ip, so minor gap.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Parameter 'target' is described as 'Device name from config' but lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios. No when-not-to-use information.

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