get_lan_browser_interface

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

The description lists error codes, which adds transparency about potential failures. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or disclose other behavioral traits like pagination or performance implications. The error codes partially compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 very concise, using two sentences to state purpose and list error codes. Every sentence adds value, but it could be better structured (e.g., bullet points for error codes) or include parameter details in a clearer format.

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 that the tool has one required parameter that is not described, and no usage context (e.g., 'Requires a valid interface from get_lan_browser_interfaces'), the description is incomplete. The output schema existence mitigates the need for return value explanation, but parameter documentation is missing.

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 description does not explain the 'interface' parameter (e.g., what format, how to obtain it). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema. The phrase 'on this interface' only implicitly references the parameter.

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 verb 'Returns' and the resource 'list of LanHost', specifying the context 'on this interface'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_lan_browser_interfaces (which returns interfaces) and get_lan_browser_interface_hostid (which returns a specific host ID).

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 that the tool is used to get hosts for a given interface, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'Use get_lan_browser_interfaces to list available interfaces first'). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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