get_discover_interfaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates the operation is a read-only query (조회) and mentions the isManaged field, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior (e.g., the 'first' parameter's effect) or any permission requirements. Since it's a simple read operation, the description adequately conveys the core behavior but lacks some depth.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a valuable detail about the isManaged field and a business requirement note. It is two sentences, efficiently using space without redundancy, though the business requirement could be considered extra context that isn't strictly necessary for invoking the tool.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the source of data (Discover network scan), the field of interest (isManaged), and enough context for the intended use case. It does not describe the response structure, but given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, this is acceptable.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'first' with a description ('조회할 인터페이스 수 (기본 50)') that explains its meaning and default. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage without extra value.

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 tool queries the list of interfaces (assets) discovered by the Discover network scan, with the verb '조회합니다' (query). It also mentions the isManaged field for checking Tanium management status. While it doesn't explicitly name a sibling like get_unmanaged_interfaces, the mention of isManaged and the business requirement implies differentiation, making the purpose clear and specific.

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 provides a business requirement context ('전산화 수준, Tanium 관리 비율') which hints at when this tool might be used, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_unmanaged_interfaces. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicitly stated, so an agent would need to infer the appropriate context.

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