system_interface_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get the configuration' indicates a read operation with no destructive side effects, which is accurate. However, it does not disclose potential error behaviors (e.g., nonexistent interface) or authorization requirements, leaving scope for agent uncertainty.

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 7-word sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded. While effective, it could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose, so it loses a point for lacking structure (e.g., no bullet points or examples).

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 output schema exists (not shown), the description needn't explain return values. However, for a simple get tool, it omits practical details like behavior when the interface does not exist or the effect of the vdom parameter. It is minimally sufficient but not 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both 'name' and 'vdom' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 gets the configuration of a specific interface, contrasting with sibling tools like system_interface_list (which retrieves all interfaces) and system_interface_create/update/delete (which modify). It could be more specific about what 'configuration' entails, but the purpose is well-understood.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like system_interface_list or system_interface_get for a different interface. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives, relying solely on the tool name and schema for context.

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