get_interface_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'show ip interface brief', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose safety, authentication requirements, error behavior, or whether it is a fast/summary view. This is minimal transparency beyond the obvious.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action and includes the reference command. Zero wasted words; the description earns its place and is easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, the description lacks guidance on when to use it and what the 'device' parameter means, leaving gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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 'device' parameter is not mentioned in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional meaning or constraints, relying entirely on the schema's raw 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?

The description states a specific action ('Show a brief interface status table') and gives the exact CLI command ('show ip interface brief'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_interfaces by emphasizing 'brief' status table.

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?

Usage context is implied (quick interface status from a device), but no explicit guidance is given on when to prefer this over alternatives like get_interfaces or run_show_command. There are no exclusions or alternative mentions.

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