get_interface_link_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, require special permissions, or describe error behavior for invalid interfaces. The reference to ethtool hints at a system command but no concrete behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 extremely concise: one leading sentence states the purpose and expected output, followed by a one-line argument explanation. No redundant wording or extraneous information is present.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter adequately. However, it omits any error or edge-case context (e.g., invalid interface handling) and does not mention the output format, though an output schema exists. Overall, it is sufficient for a basic retrieval 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 schema provides only the parameter name 'interface' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds a helpful example ('eth0') and clarifies it is an interface name, but it does not specify constraints, format beyond an example, or behavior for nonexistent interfaces. This partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 gets per-interface link statistics via ethtool, listing specific metrics (speed, duplex, errors, drops). This verb-resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_hotspot_link_stats and get_network_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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred conditions, exclusions, or related tools such as get_hotspot_link_stats for wireless links, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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