get_nic

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals read-only behavior, and the description merely confirms this with 'Get details' without adding new behavioral context. It does not contradict the annotation, but it also doesn't disclose anything about errors, depth parameter effects, or parent resource requirements. Minimal added value beyond the structured annotation.

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?

Nine words, front-loaded with the action and resource, and zero redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the parenthetical '(NIC)' removes any ambiguity. Perfectly proportioned for a simple getter 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 simple read-only getter with a 100%-covered schema and annotations, this is adequate. The term 'details' is vague, but since there is no output schema, the agent must infer what is returned. Could be improved by listing example NIC properties (IP, MAC, status), but not required for basic use.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all four parameters (depth, nic_id, server_id, datacenter_id), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, making this acceptable.

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?

Clear 'Get details of a specific network interface (NIC)' with verb, resource, and scope, distinguishing it from list operations like list_nics. The word 'specific' signals singular resource retrieval by ID. Slightly generic in that 'details' could be more descriptive, but unambiguous in context.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling getters (get_server, get_datacenter, etc.) and list_nics as a complementary operation, an explicit mention of 'use when you have a NIC ID' would help. No exclusions or cross-references are provided.

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