nodesGetNodeSubInterfaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get the list'), implying a read-only operation, but fails to describe key behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the response format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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, concise sentence ('Get the list of sub-interfaces.') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is overly brief, lacking necessary context for effective use, which slightly reduces its utility despite the efficient structure.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and correct usage is insufficient.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all parameters (fabricId, nodeId, candidate, includeMetadata). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get the list of sub-interfaces' clearly states the action (get/list) and resource (sub-interfaces), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'sub-interfaces' refers to (e.g., network interfaces on a node) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'nodesGetNodeSubInterface' (singular vs. plural), leaving room for 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring a fabric and node), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools such as 'nodesGetNodeSubInterface' (for a single sub-interface) or 'nodesAddNodeSubInterfaces' (for creation). This absence leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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