switch-list-interfaces

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

The description includes '(read-only)' which adds a critical behavioral hint beyond the name. However, without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or any side effects beyond being read-only.

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?

Extremely concise: one short sentence that immediately conveys the tool's action and constraint. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded for quick parsing.

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 the tool's simplicity (listing L3 interfaces with optional filters) and that the schema fully describes parameters, the description is nearly complete. It lacks details about the output format, but since there is no output schema, the description could have included a brief note on return values. Still, it is adequate for a straightforward read operation.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the tool's purpose. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states 'List layer 3 interfaces for a switch' with the verb 'list' and specific resource 'layer 3 interfaces for a switch'. The read-only note further clarifies intent. Differentiates from sibling tools like switch-list-ports or switch-list-ospf by targeting L3 interfaces only.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The name and description imply it's for listing L3 interfaces on a switch, but does not discuss alternatives or scenarios where other tools (e.g., switch-list-ports) would be more appropriate.

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