ndfc_get_interface_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the return format (dict with list of interfaces and fields like status, VLAN, compliance) but does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation, discuss permissions, rate limits, or edge cases (e.g., empty results, connectivity failures). The provided detail is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Description is extremely concise: a single-sentence purpose, followed by clearly labeled 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy or filler. Ideal for quick parsing by an AI agent.

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 no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview of the return value (dict with list of interfaces and fields like status, VLAN, compliance) but omits specifics (exact field names, types, or nested structures). The single parameter is well-handled, but details on error conditions, pagination, or performance implications are missing. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more 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%, but the tool's description includes an 'Args' section that clarifies the parameter (serial_number) with example format. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, especially since the parameter is required and the example value clarifies the expected format.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed interface information for a specific switch by serial number. The verb 'Get' and resource 'interface details' are specific, and the scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like ndfc_get_all_switches or ndfc_get_switches, which focus on switch inventory rather than interface-level data.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ndfc_get_network_preview, ndfc_get_network_status). The description lacks context about prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or conditions that make this tool preferable. Users must infer its niche 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.