list_interfaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context by clarifying that it returns all interface types and by explaining the filter behavior. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact, well-formatted notes section. Every sentence/note adds value without redundancy.

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 list tool with an output schema and safe annotations, the description covers the main purpose and two key filter parameters. Minor gaps (running_only/disabled_only) are mitigated by schema defaults/titles, and no side effects need disclosure.

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 schema-description coverage is 0%, but the description's Notes section adds meaning for type_filter and name_filter with examples and partial-match semantics. However, it does not explain device, running_only, or disabled_only, leaving some parameters without descriptive guidance.

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 explicitly states 'Lists all interfaces on the MikroTik device' and enumerates many interface types, ending with 'any other type'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling type-specific list tools like list_wireless_interfaces or list_vlan_interfaces.

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 general-purpose use through 'all interfaces' and 'any other type', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of a type-specific sibling or mention exclusions. The filter notes provide some usage context but not alternatives.

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