Список интерфейсов

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It says the tool reports interface state, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or what the returned state looks like.

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 compact sentence that includes the resource type, the full scope of interface categories, and the kind of state returned. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 list tool, the description gives enough context to select it: it returns all router interface types and their state. It does not specify an exact output shape, but given no output schema is defined, that is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is already 100% covered. The description does not need to document parameter behavior since there are none to document.

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 identifies the tool's scope: all router network interfaces (WAN, Wi-Fi, VPN, bridges) and their state. This distinguishes it from narrower siblings like get_wan_status or list_vpn_interfaces, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'retrieves'.

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 word 'all' implies this tool is for a broad interface overview, while siblings like get_wan_status and list_vpn_interfaces cover narrower subsets. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over those alternatives.

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