list_nics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only list operation but lacks details on pagination, limits, ordering, or return format. The agent gets minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 short sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words, and the key verb and resource are front-loaded.

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 simple parameter set and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not hint at the return structure (e.g., list of NIC objects), missing an opportunity to improve completeness for an agent. With no output schema, a brief note on output would help.

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 both parameters described. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond 'datacenter_id' and 'server_id'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already covers parameter semantics.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('network interfaces (NICs)'), and the scope ('attached to a server'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_nic' (single NIC) and 'list_lan_nics' (NICs on a LAN).

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 usage when needing all NICs on a specific server, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_nic' for a single NIC or 'list_lan_nics' for LAN-scoped NICs. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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