Get Network 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'lists' interfaces, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if this requires permissions, returns real-time or cached data, includes error handling, or details the output format (e.g., JSON, list). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or unnecessary details. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly 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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a simple listing operation. However, without annotations or output details, it lacks context on permissions, data format, or error cases, which could be important for an agent to use it correctly in a network monitoring environment.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here since there are none to explain. It efficiently avoids redundancy, earning a high score for not over-explaining non-existent parameters.

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 action ('List') and resource ('network interfaces on the system'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from potential sibling tools that might also list network interfaces, such as 'list_interceptors' which could overlap in functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'capture_traffic' or 'intercept_*' tools that might involve network interfaces, there's no indication of whether this is for inspection, configuration, or other contexts, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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