router_interfaces

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds modest context by specifying the scope as 'current status' across 'all logical' interfaces, but it does not disclose the output structure or edge cases such as empty results.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy; every word contributes meaning.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with thorough safety annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is the lack of any indication about the shape or fields of the returned status, which would be useful since there is no output schema.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. This aligns with the baseline for parameterless tools and requires no additional compensation.

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 ('Get') and a bounded resource ('the current status of all logical network interfaces'). The qualifiers 'all logical' clearly distinguish this from physical port or single-interface/detail tools like router_port_status and router_interface_details.

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 implies when to use it: when the current status of all logical interfaces is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, and with closely related siblings like router_interface_details, explicit guidance would have been valuable.

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