list_interfaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only, safe nature is covered. The description adds the 'every interface' scoping (no hidden default filtering) and lists the returned fields, which is useful context. It does not go deeper into behavior like pagination or result size limits, but given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place: 'List every interface' sets scope, and the field list specifies the expected output. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gap is the meaning of running_only, which is neither explained in the schema nor the description. Since the tool has only two optional parameters and the default behavior is clear from 'every interface', this is a moderate gap rather than a critical one.

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 description coverage is only 50%, with type_filter explained but running_only left undocumented. The tool description does not compensate: it mentions 'running state' as a field but never explains that running_only filters to only running interfaces. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and the schema itself is incomplete for running_only, so an agent may misuse 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('every interface') and names the exact fields returned (type, MAC, MTU, running state). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling list tools like list_ip_addresses and list_firewall_rules, so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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: call this when you need to enumerate interfaces and their attributes. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., list_ip_addresses) or when to apply the type_filter/running_only parameters. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and siblings.

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