get_interfaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states what data is returned but omits read-only nature, authentication needs, caching, or any operational caveats; only the 'get_' prefix hints at safety.

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 no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though its terseness borders on under-specification rather than verbosity.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. But for a tool with one undocumented parameter and no annotations, the description should at least clarify the 'detailed' flag and basic usage context; it does neither.

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 single 'detailed' boolean parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell what toggling 'detailed' changes, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States the resource (Pi-hole host network interfaces) and the returned data (addresses and traffic counters), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_gateway or list_network_devices. However, it is a noun phrase without an explicit verb, so the action is only implied by the tool name.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as list_network_devices or get_gateway, and no exclusions. An agent must infer that this returns host-level interface data rather than general network devices.

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