get_interfaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by mentioning 'show interfaces', but it does not explicitly state that it is safe/non-destructive or disclose any context like authentication requirements or potential performance effects. The description is transparent at a basic level but lacks richness.

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 a single, focused sentence that earns its place. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the underlying command without any extraneous content.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about when to use this tool, how it relates to sibling tools, or any behavioral caveats. Given the tool's simplicity, a score of 3 reflects a viable but incomplete description.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'device' with no description coverage (0%). The description does not mention the device parameter at all, leaving the agent without any guidance on what value to provide or why it is required. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema-level documentation.

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 'Show interface details' clearly states a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_interface_status or get_interface_status by focusing on full details. The parenthetical reference to 'show interfaces' reinforces the exact command being executed.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_interface_status, run_show_command, or other get_* tools. It does not state any exclusions or preferred contexts.

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