interface_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get'), which is sufficient for a zero-parameter list tool. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., caching, ordering) are mentioned, but the tool's simplicity makes this adequate.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose and context ('for firewall rules'), though it could optionally specify whether the list is exhaustive or filtered. Overall, it provides enough context for basic understanding.

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 input schema has no parameters, and the description does not add any parameter-related information. Since schema coverage is 100% (no parameters to describe), baseline is 3. The tool's simplicity means no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 that the tool retrieves interface names specifically for firewall rules, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('interface names'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fw_rules or set_fw_rule by focusing on listing available interfaces rather than managing rules.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the context 'for firewall rules' hints at a use case, there is no explicit mention of prerequisites, context of use, or when not to use it.

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