get_interfaces_ip

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

The '[READ]' tag indicates non-destructive behavior, but no annotations are present to confirm. The description lacks disclosure of permissions, side effects, or behavior with null/valid target. No output schema, so return format is unknown.

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 very short: one line and a parameter note. It is front-loaded with '[READ]' and contains no fluff. However, it might be too sparse for completeness.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or how filtering works when target is null. For a read tool on network interfaces, more detail is expected.

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?

The parameter 'target' has a description 'Device name from config', adding meaning beyond the schema (which only has type). With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates effectively. Could specify format or constraints.

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 it retrieves per-interface IPv4/IPv6 addresses and prefix lengths, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('interfaces IP'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_interfaces' (likely interface status) and 'get_interfaces_counters' (counters).

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 versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_interfaces' for interface status). The '[READ]' prefix hints at read-only, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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