hcloud_list_server_interfaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds nothing beyond them — no pagination behavior, no statement about whether the list is scoped only to the given server or includes shared/mutating interfaces, and no hint about what fields each interface carries. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is a missed opportunity rather than a contradiction.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no redundancy. It is efficient but so terse that there is no second sentence to carry scope or behavioral detail.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the minimum is met. However, the agent is left guessing how this listing differs from hcloud_show_server and hcloud_list_server_block_devices, which is the main risk for wrong-tool selection in this large sibling set.

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 100% for both parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only the linkage that server_id identifies the ECS server whose interfaces are listed; it gives no format guidance (ID vs. name, region/project scoping) beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('network interfaces'), and the owning resource ('ECS server'), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not differentiate from the closest sibling, hcloud_list_server_block_devices, which is also a per-server sub-resource listing, so the agent has to infer the boundary from names alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required server_id and region make it obvious this is a per-server inspection call, but the description never states when to prefer it over hcloud_show_server (which may already expose interface data) or hcloud_list_server_block_devices. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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