zyxel_show_interfaces

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It correctly identifies a read operation ('Display'), but fails to disclose safety (e.g., read-only nature), authorization requirements, or side effects. For a simple show command, the minimal transparency is adequate but not exemplary.

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 concise phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, making it efficient for quick parsing.

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 the simplicity of the tool (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose. It could note that all interfaces are displayed by default, but for this complexity level, it is nearly complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not clarify default behavior (e.g., showing all interfaces) or the format of the 'detail' flag.

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 action ('Display') and the resource ('interface status and configuration'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'zyxel_configure_interface' by focusing on display rather than modification.

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 usage for viewing interface details but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other show commands like 'zyxel_show_running_config' or 'zyxel_show_system_info'. Without exclusions or alternatives, the agent must infer context.

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