List network interfaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that pending, not-yet-applied changes are included, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description explains what the tool lists and notes pending changes, but lacks details about the output format or structure. For a simple list tool, it is fairly complete, but could be more informative.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists network interfaces on a node, listing the types included (bridges, bonds, physical NICs, VLANs). It is specific about the resource and action, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling list tools, though the name and context make it clear.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context and sibling tool names imply it is for network interfaces, but no when-not-to-use or prerequisites are provided.

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