List router interfaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the call is not paged and a complete=false value signals the router has more interfaces, which tells the agent how to detect truncation. It does not explain how limit interacts with that 'not paged' claim, which is the one loose end.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the resource scope is front-loaded and the truncation caveat follows. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the description covers the one thing the schema cannot: how to tell the list was truncated. The only gap is the relationship between the limit parameter and the stated 'not paged' behavior.

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 coverage is 67%: limit and project_id carry descriptions (project_id even points to get_scope), but router_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 for mid-coverage schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a router's internal interfaces') and enumerates what an interface contains (port, subnet, IP), which lets an agent distinguish it from the broader list_ports sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative, so sibling routing still requires inference.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name: call this when you need the interfaces attached to a specific router, rather than all ports. There is no explicit 'when to use this vs list_ports' statement and no stated preconditions (e.g., that the router must exist or that router_id must come from list_routers).

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