opnsense_get_interface_statistics

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

Despite readOnly/annotations already declaring safety, the description adds crucial context: counters are cumulative since boot, throughput requires two calls, and rising errors imply duplex mismatch or bad cable. It also explains return format details, going well beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence is informative without unnecessary padding.

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 modest complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and return format. It even includes practical troubleshooting guidance, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description provides examples and clarifies the device parameter (e.g., 'igb0' vs config name) and the response_format choice, adding value to the schema's already detailed descriptions. However, it mostly repeats schema information rather than introducing entirely new syntax or edge cases.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get packet, byte, error and collision counters per interface.' It clearly distinguishes this from live per-connection traffic by explicitly naming an alternative tool in the examples.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'Use when: "Is the WAN dropping packets?" -> device="pppoe0"' and 'Don't use when: You want live per-connection traffic (use opnsense_query_firewall_states)'. This directly addresses when to use vs. alternatives.

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