get_interface

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the requirement of an exact name but provides no additional behavioral context like error handling or return behavior. No contradictions.

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?

Description is two lines: a clear main sentence and a focused note about name format. No redundant information.

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 simple read-only getter with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states purpose, product scope (interface), and name format. It omits device param explanation and alternative-tool guidance, but overall is complete enough for common use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the name parameter with exact format examples ('ether1', 'bridge', etc.) but fails to clarify the optional device parameter. This is partial compensation for one of two parameters.

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 'Gets detailed information about a specific interface by name' — a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling list/get tools by focusing on a single named interface, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from type-specific getters.

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 use when you need details for a known interface name, as shown by examples. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this instead of get_vlan_interface or get_wireless_interface, or mention exclusions.

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