hs4.admin.interfaces.list

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it lists interfaces, but does not indicate if it is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The phrase 'derived from HS4 status metadata' hints at a read operation but is insufficient.

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 sentence with no fluff, making it concise. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing critical information, so it is not optimally structured.

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 simplicity of one optional parameter and no output schema, the description still lacks essential details: what is returned, whether pagination or filtering is supported, and what 'interfaces' means. It is incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain the sole parameter 'includeRefs'. The agent must infer its meaning from the name alone, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'interfaces', distinguishing it from sibling tools like add, update, remove. However, 'interfaces' is ambiguous (could be network or API) and 'derived from HS4 status metadata' adds slight context but remains vague.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hs4.devices.list or hs4.plugins.list. No prerequisites or recommended contexts are mentioned.

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