List interfaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the minor detail that state and MAC are included in results, but does not clarify what 'state' means, whether this reflects the host's interfaces, or any other behavioral nuance. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 six-word fragment with zero filler—every word contributes. However, it is not a complete sentence and omits the verb, making it terse rather than well-structured. Slightly more polish would make it ideal.

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?

For a parameterless read-only listing tool with an output schema present and safety annotations in place, the description provides the essential content expectation (state and MAC). It does not explain the scope of the listing, but the low complexity and existing structured metadata make this a minor gap rather than a deficiency.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing unexplained. Per the rubric, 0-parameter tools get a baseline of 4 because there is no parameter burden for the description to carry.

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 identifies the resource (network interfaces) and the returned fields (state and MAC), which gives an agent a concrete idea of what the tool exposes. It lacks an explicit verb, relying on the title for 'list', and does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings such as port_list or connection_list, though the resource is specific enough to avoid gross ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like port_list, connection_list, or network_check. With over 120 siblings, several of which are network-related, the absence of any selection criteria leaves the agent to guess which listing tool fits the task.

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