list_nics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists all NICs, but does not explain pagination, filtering behavior, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The presence of depth and filters parameters is not addressed.

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 sentence of 10 words, conveying the essential purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 4 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the depth or filters parameters, nor does it describe the response structure. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% (all parameters documented in the input schema). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not add extra value.

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 verb (List), resource (network interfaces), and context (attached to a server). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_lan_nics or list_loadbalancer_nics by specifying the parent resource as a server.

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 that this tool is for server-attached NICs, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like list_lan_nics or list_loadbalancer_nics. There is no mention of when not to use it or under what conditions.

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