opn_interface_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes a non-destructive read operation and specifies return format (dict keyed by interface). Could mention potential empty results but adequate overall.

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?

Three lean sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, no extraneous words. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema available, the description covers the essential behavior and return format fully. No gaps.

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by listing the statistics fields and return structure, exceeding the baseline of 4 for zero-param tools.

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 gets per-interface traffic statistics, listing specific fields (bytes, packets, errors). It distinguishes from sibling tools like opn_dns_stats or opn_gateway_status by focusing on per-interface data.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: for network utilization, interface errors, or traffic comparison. Lacks when-not or alternatives, but given the narrow scope, it's sufficient.

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