show_interface_detail

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses what data is returned and that it's read-only (implied), but does not mention potential side effects, permissions, error conditions, or performance characteristics. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise, with the main purpose in the first line, followed by a list of returned data and clear argument descriptions. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately covers what the tool does, what parameters are needed, and what data is returned. Minor missing details like device reachability assumptions are acceptable for this level of specificity.

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 the description compensates by explaining both parameters: device as defined in devices.yaml, and interface with examples (Gi0/0/0, 1/1/1, ge-0/0/0). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare string types.

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 'Show' and the resource 'detailed statistics for a specific interface', listing the types of statistics returned (counters, errors, CRC, drops, utilization, MTU, speed). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'show_interfaces' which likely provides a summary of all interfaces.

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 detailed interface stats but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'show_interfaces'. It lacks when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer context.

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