capture_get_interface_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the output content (supported link types and timestamp types) but no additional behavioral traits like error handling or interface existence requirements. This is adequate given the annotation coverage, but not richer.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb 'Get' and wastes no words. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, the description lacks usage timing and parameter format details, making it serviceable but not fully complete. Annotations cover safety, but the missing guidance on how to specify the interface leaves a gap.

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 0% description coverage for the only parameter, 'interface', and the description only refers to it as 'a specific network interface' without specifying the expected format (e.g., name, ID, index) or providing examples. This does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed capabilities of a specific network interface'). It also specifies the kind of capabilities (supported link types and timestamp types), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like capture_list_interfaces.

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 the tool is used after identifying a specific interface, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the need to call capture_list_interfaces first. Usage context is only implied, not stated.

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