uisp_list_device_interfaces

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description discloses what data is included. However, it does not mention whether all interfaces are returned, how failures with invalid device IDs behave, or any additional behavioral constraints.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key return-value detail. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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 list operation, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource and what is included in the result. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by naming the returned content. Minor gaps like return shape for empty results or error behavior keep it from a perfect score.

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 already fully documents the single parameter with 100% coverage: 'Device ID (from uisp_list_devices).' The description adds little beyond 'device's interfaces,' which is sufficient given the schema's completeness, but it does not independently enrich parameter meaning.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('a device's network interfaces'), and the key data returned ('configured IP addresses and status'). This clearly separates it from the many device-related sibling tools, such as uisp_get_device or uisp_list_devices.

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 tool's purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer it should be used when interface-level detail is needed for a device. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives like uisp_get_device_detail or uisp_get_device, nor any exclusion criteria.

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