get_unmanaged_interfaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it retrieves a list; it does not mention pagination behavior, any side effects, or the exact nature of the result set. Given the tool name says 'interfaces' but description says 'assets', there is also a slight inconsistency that could confuse agents. The description is too sparse to carry the behavioral burden without annotations.

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 with the key intent front-loaded. The parenthetical business requirement is slightly redundant but not verbose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one optional parameter.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read-only tool with one parameter, but it lacks a clear statement of the return format (e.g., what fields are included) and does not resolve the 'interfaces' vs 'assets' terminology mismatch. Given the absence of an output schema, the description could be more complete, but it is not severely lacking.

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%, and the schema already describes the 'first' parameter as '조회할 인터페이스 수' (number of interfaces to retrieve). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb '조회' (retrieve) and a specific resource '미관리 자산 목록' (unmanaged asset list), and explicitly restricts to '목록만' (only) unmanaged assets, distinguishing it from siblings like get_all_assets. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'only unmanaged assets', which suggests it is not for managed assets, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance. The parenthetical business requirement adds minor context but no actionable routing to sibling tools.

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