get_ethernet_interface

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

With no annotations, the description itself must convey behavioral traits. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the special 'all' value is disclosed, which is useful. But the description does not explain error behavior, output shape, or what 'details' includes; the burden falls on the output schema.

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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and adds only the essential parameter explanation. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy or 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 one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the parameter and the special 'all' option. It could be more complete by noting how to distinguish this from get_network_interfaces or what happens for invalid interface names, but those are minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates: it explains that 'interface' is an Ethernet interface name, provides a concrete example ('eth0'), and documents the special value 'all'. This is precisely the semantic content an agent needs beyond the schema.

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 a verb and resource: 'Get ethernet interface details for a specific interface.' It is unambiguous about scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_network_interfaces or get_interface_link_stats, relying mostly on the tool name and the word 'specific.'

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: use it to get details for a named interface, or pass 'all' for every interface. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not mention alternative tools that might serve overlapping purposes.

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