List interfaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what data comes back (state, MAC, MTU, traffic counters), which matters since there is no output schema, but says nothing about pagination, truncation, or the cost of collecting counters.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero filler. It is efficient but thin enough that the space saved is not spent on routing or filter clarification.

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?

Four optional params and no output schema, so the description should carry return-value and filter meaning. It covers return fields adequately but leaves usage routing, the 'running' filter, and the default-device behavior to the schema or nothing at all.

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 75%, so baseline is 3. The description does not clarify the parameters; worse, 'type' and 'running' read as returned fields rather than as filters, leaving the 'running' filter (the one undocumented schema param) undefined anywhere.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('interfaces'), and it enumerates the fields returned (type, running/disabled, MAC, MTU, counters). That distinguishes it from siblings like mikrotik_ip_addresses or mikrotik_routes by resource, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as mikrotik_print or mikrotik_list_devices. The only routing hint in the whole definition is inside the schema's 'device' parameter, not the description.

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