diagnose_interface_issues

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context by enumerating the checks (interface status, configuration, gateway status, ARP entries), which clarifies the tool's diagnostic scope beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, and contains no fluff or redundant information.

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 single-parameter read-only diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool does and when to use it. It could optionally reference related tools, but the current level of detail is adequate given the simplicity and existing structured metadata.

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 single parameter 'interface' is fully documented in the schema with a description and example values. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but schema coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('interface'), then details the four specific checks performed. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling diagnostic tools like diagnose_vpn_status or get_gateway_status by focusing on interface-level health.

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 for troubleshooting interface problems but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_gateway_status or get_arp_table. There is no mention of exclusions or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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