router_interface_details

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

The description repeats the read-only intent already stated by readOnlyHint=true and does not contradict annotations. It adds the 'LuCI status view' framing, but no further behavioral details such as what happens if the interface does not exist or whether data is a snapshot; annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and scope.

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 one documented parameter, read-only annotations, and a single-interface scope, the description is mostly complete. The only missing piece is a brief indication of what fields the status view contains, but no output schema exists and 'status view' reasonably conveys the return nature.

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% because the 'interface' parameter is already documented as a logical interface name with examples. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not enhance it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('LuCI interface status view'), and a singular scope ('one logical interface'), so an agent can tell it targets a single interface rather than all interfaces. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like router_interfaces, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'for one logical interface' gives clear context for when to invoke this tool: when a single interface's status is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the singular scope usefully implies not to use it for listing all interfaces.

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