get_network_interfaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions SSH connectivity for remote execution but doesn't describe what happens on failure, whether it requires sudo/root privileges, what format the output takes, or any rate limits. The description provides basic execution context but lacks important behavioral details for a tool that interacts with system networking.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Both sentences earn their place - the first establishes what the tool does, the second explains parameter dependencies. It's appropriately sized for a 2-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and only 2 parameters with good description coverage, the description is moderately complete. However, for a tool that executes commands (potentially via SSH) and returns system information, it should mention authentication requirements, error conditions, or execution context more explicitly to be fully complete.

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?

The description adds significant semantic value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'host' is optional and defaults to local execution when not provided, and clarifies that 'username' is required only when host is specified. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions, providing essential context for proper tool invocation.

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's purpose with 'Get network interface information including IP addresses' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('network interface information') with additional detail ('IP addresses'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_network_connections by focusing on interfaces rather than connections, though the distinction could be more explicit.

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 implied usage guidance through parameter documentation - it explains when host is optional (executes locally) and when username is required (if host is provided). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_network_connections or get_system_info, nor does it mention prerequisites like SSH configuration or authentication methods.

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