list_interfaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'List available network interfaces' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, platform dependencies, or privilege requirements. The operation is simple but the description adds no safety or side-effect context.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It includes a 'Returns' section that clarifies the output, and every word earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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 the tool's low complexity (no parameters), an output schema exists to define the return structure, and the sibling tools clearly indicate the capture context, the description is mostly complete. However, it could have briefly mentioned that this is intended to be used before starting a capture, which would provide slightly more context.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but that is unnecessary here since there are no parameters to explain.

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 a specific action ('List available network interfaces') and the resource ('for capture'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like capture_live or analyze_pcap_file, as listing interfaces is a distinct pre-capture step.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's presumably used before capture tools, the description doesn't explicitly state this context or mention any alternatives.

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