list_lan_nics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming read-only operation. The description simply says 'List', which aligns with annotations. It adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., pagination, return format, or filtering behavior beyond what the schema provides). No contradiction.

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?

Description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and clearly states the core purpose.

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 simplicity, no output schema, and the presence of good parameter descriptions and readOnly annotation, the description is adequate. It could mention that it returns a list of NICs, but that is implied by 'List'. The depth and filters parameters are well-documented in the schema, so no additional context is required.

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%, so all parameters have descriptions. The tool description itself does not add parameter details, but since the schema covers them, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The detailed filters description in the schema includes retry guidance, which adds value beyond the basic schema.

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?

Description clearly states the action (List), resource (NICs), and scope (attached to a specific LAN). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_nics (all NICs) and list_loadbalancer_nics (NICs on load balancers).

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 purpose is clear, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative guidance provided, though the name and context make usage fairly obvious.

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