switch_show_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 word 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, that it triggers a CLI command on the device, or what the return payload looks like. It lacks any behavioral detail beyond the verb and resource.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential purpose and scope efficiently.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify what the agent can expect in return (e.g., a table of interfaces and their status). The description omits this, and does not mention any prerequisites or side effects, leaving an incomplete picture for a network operation tool.

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 device_id ('Switch device ID'), so the schema already defines the parameter adequately. The description adds no additional meaning for the parameter, which is the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 verb 'Show' and the resource 'interface status/brief', specifically scoped to 'Cisco or HP switch'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like switch_show_vlans or switch_show_mac_table, and also from similar tools for other vendors such as fortigate_get_interfaces or mikrotik_get_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?

The description provides clear context: use when you need interface status/brief on a Cisco or HP switch. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, the vendor and resource scope make the intended usage evident among the sibling tools.

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