List Interface List Members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description only adds the pagination note, contributing little behavioral context beyond the 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?

Two tight sentences with the core scoping ('which interface belongs to which list') front-loaded and filtering/pagination following. No wasted words, though it is slightly leaner than a fully structured definition.

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, non-destructive list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is adequately complete. The only omission is explicit routing versus sibling listing tools, which is minor given the clarifying parenthetical.

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 100%, so list, interface, limit, offset, and routerId are all documented in the schema. The description restates filtering by list/interface and pagination, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (interface list memberships), and the parenthetical 'which interface belongs to which list, e.g. WAN/LAN' clarifies the semantic distinction from the sibling list_interface_lists. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, but the concept is 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 implies a read/listing use case but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to alternatives like list_interface_lists or list_interfaces. Usage is inferable from the purpose but not guided.

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