mikrotik_get_interfaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description only states it lists interfaces via REST API, but doesn't disclose read-only behavior, error handling, authentication needs, or potential side effects. The 'via REST API' hint is minimal and doesn't provide meaningful behavioral transparency.

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 that clearly states the purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks detail about the output shape or what 'traffic stats' specifically includes. More contextual information about the returned data would improve completeness, but the description is adequate for a basic interface listing.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'device_id', which is described as 'Mikrotik device ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema is already sufficient, so the 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 uses a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'interfaces with traffic stats'. It distinguishes itself from sibling Mikrotik tools like mikrotik_get_routes and mikrotik_get_firewall by focusing on interfaces and including traffic statistics.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. The only context is the tool name and the generic statement of capabilities.

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