network_interfaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds the observable field scope (including counters, which implies cumulative values), but says nothing about whether all interfaces are returned or how counters behave. With rich annotations and an output schema, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and lists only concrete field names. Nothing is wasted or repeated.

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?

With no parameters, a full annotation set, and an existing output schema, the description needs only to establish scope, which it does. Minor gaps (local vs. remote interfaces, counter semantics) are covered by the output schema.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly requires no argument discussion.

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 names the resource (NIC) and enumerates the exact data it covers: addresses, netmask, MAC, MTU, speed, up/down state, and I/O counters. An agent can tell it returns interface-level network configuration rather than connectivity checks. It lacks a verb ("returns/lists") and does not distinguish itself from nearby tools like list_ports or system_info.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than siblings such as list_ports, check_tcp_port, or system_info. The agent must infer from the field list alone that this is the interface-configuration source.

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