get_container_interfaces

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits beyond purpose. It does not mention side effects, failure modes, or whether the container must be running (implied but not explicit). The description is too minimal for a retrieval tool.

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 extremely concise with a clear purpose sentence followed by parameter definitions. No extraneous text. However, given the lack of parameter details, it might be too brief to be useful.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description lacks crucial context: it does not specify prerequisites (e.g., container must be running), error conditions, or how this tool fits among the many get_* siblings. The description is insufficient for a tool interacting with a specific resource.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It lists 'node: The node name' and 'vmid: The container ID', which are slightly helpful but still vague. No examples, formats, or additional context are provided to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool retrieves network interfaces and IPs of a running container, distinguishing it from many get_* tools that fetch other container details. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_container_config or get_vm_interfaces (if exists).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other get_* container tools). There is no mention of preconditions, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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