interface_health_rca

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly marks the tool as [READ], states it pulls two data sources (get_interfaces and get_interfaces_counters), and reports worst-first findings. It does not mention side effects, but the nature of the tool makes them unlikely.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear header line followed by details and an Args section. However, the Args section could be considered slightly verbose for a single parameter but is still efficient.

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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by describing the report format (worst-first, with counts, cause, and action). However, it lacks details like whether the output is a list or a single object, and it does not mention pagination or error handling.

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 must fully explain parameters. It does so by describing 'target' as a device name and noting the default behavior (omit for default device). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 verb 'Flag' and the resource 'interfaces' with specific conditions (admin-up/oper-down, erroring, discarding, flapping). It distinguishes from siblings like get_interfaces and get_interfaces_counters by indicating it performs root cause analysis, not raw retrieval.

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 implies usage for diagnosing interface health issues but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_interfaces or device_health. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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