capture_list_interfaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is well covered. The description adds value by specifying what is returned (interface names, display names, addresses), but does not disclose any potential edge cases such as empty results or permission requirements. Acceptable given the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the expected output. Every word contributes to understanding, with no filler.

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 with an output schema and detailed annotations, the description is complete enough. It mentions the key return fields (names, display names, addresses). A small gap is not mentioning that the output may be empty or require specific permissions, but this is minor given the simple nature of the tool.

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 has 0 parameters and the schema covers all properties (empty object). With no parameters to explain, the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics.

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 'List', the resource 'available network interfaces for packet capture', and the specific return values (interface names, display names, addresses). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like capture_list_files, which lists files, not 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 clearly implies use before starting a packet capture to see available interfaces. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context 'for packet capture' provides clear usage context. The sibling tool capture_get_interface_capabilities is distinct in purpose, so no confusion.

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