pbs_node_network_iface_get

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

The READ-ONLY label indicates no side effects, which is appropriate for a read operation. However, no annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose error handling (e.g., if interface does not exist) or any rate limits, leaving gaps.

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 sentence plus a brief note, effectively conveying the purpose and a requirement. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sections for usage and requirements).

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits details like what happens if the interface is missing or if the node is unreachable. For a read operation with good schema coverage, it is minimally adequate.

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 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds little beyond the schema—only the necessary config note. The schema already provides clear meaning for node, iface, and proximo_target.

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 it reads one network interface's configuration on a PBS node. The READ-ONLY label reinforces the verb. It is distinct from sibling mutating tools (create, delete, update) but does not explicitly differentiate from pbs_node_network_list for listing all 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the need for PROXIMO_PBS_* config but does not describe prerequisites or when to prefer this over pbs_node_network_list or other read tools.

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