apic_get_interface_statistics

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

The description discloses that it returns operational state, speed, and usage, which is somewhat informative. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it fails to mention side effects (none expected), rate limits, pagination, or behavior when no filters are given. It adds some value but is not fully transparent.

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 concise, using two short paragraphs to cover summary, parameters, and return value. It front-loads the main action. Could be slightly more efficient by merging the args into the first sentence, but overall it is well-structured and wastes little space.

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 low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, its parameters, and what it returns. It does not explicitly cover edge cases like missing both parameters, but for a simple retrieval tool it is adequately complete.

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 must compensate. It does provide basic meaning for the two parameters (node_id as optional node ID filter, interface as optional interface name), which aligns with the schema titles. However, it doesn't add nuance like accepted formats or constraints, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 retrieves interface statistics for a node and/or interface using a clear verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('interface statistics'). The optional filters are listed. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like apic_get_physical_interfaces, relying on the name for distinction.

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 only vaguely suggests it is 'useful for monitoring interface health and performance', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites exist, or when not to use it. No mention of sibling tools or scenarios is provided.

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