list_interfaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose the data fields returned, which is useful. However, it does not mention edge cases such as pagination, filtering, or error scenarios, which keeps it at an adequate but not rich level.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action ('List interfaces') and immediately specifies the useful data fields. No filler or unnecessary words.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple list tool. It names the returned data fields, which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. It could be more complete by stating whether all interfaces are returned or if any filtering applies, but the core information is present.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable because the schema descriptions are complete.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List interfaces') and enumerates the returned attributes (link status, IP, speed, and traffic counters). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as list_firewall_policies or list_address_objects.

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 self-evident: an agent would use this when they need interface details. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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