list_nics

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

The annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description says 'List', which is consistent. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotation—no mention of pagination, response format, or the depth/filters behavior. The schema's filters description warns about silent empty returns, but that is in the schema, not the description. The description does not contradict the annotation, so it scores a baseline 3.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and scope. There is no unnecessary fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 there is no output schema, the description could have mentioned what the response contains (e.g., NIC properties) or any pagination. However, it clearly states it lists all NICs for a server, and the tool's simplicity plus the presence of depth/filters in the schema covers common needs. It's adequate but not exceptionally detailed.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (datacenter_id, server_id, depth, filters), so schema coverage is likely 100%. The description does not add any further meaning about the parameters; it merely restates the purpose. The filters parameter has a useful warning in the schema, but the description itself doesn't enrich parameter understanding. Baseline 3 applies.

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 is unambiguous: 'List all network interfaces (NICs) attached to a server' clearly states the verb (list), the resource (network interfaces/NICs), and the scope (attached to a server). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_lan_nics or list_loadbalancer_nics by specifying 'server' context, and from get_nic (singular) by indicating all NICs.

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 tells what it does but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, such as list_lan_nics for LAN-level NICs or get_nic for a single NIC. The context is implied by name and description, but no explicit 'use this when' guidance is provided.

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