pve_sdn_fabric_status_interfaces

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

The description labels the tool as READ-ONLY and clarifies the data is locally-rendered, but with no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does not mention permissions, error conditions, or side effects, though for a simple read operation this is adequate.

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 well-structured sentence, front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY', and contains no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope.

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 detail return values. It specifies what is returned (name/state/type) and that it is locally-rendered. Could mention that the node parameter is optional, but that is in the schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions 'on one node' and 'for a fabric', but these are already clear from parameter names and descriptions.

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 the tool is READ-ONLY, gets all interfaces for a fabric on one node, and specifies the fields (name/state/type) and that these are the fabric's own locally-rendered interfaces, not peer-controlled. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pve_sdn_fabric_status_neighbors.

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 indicates the scope (one node, one fabric) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pve_sdn_fabric_status_neighbors or pve_sdn_fabric_status_routes. However, the specificity of 'interfaces' implies context.

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