cisco_interfaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'List' implies a non-destructive read and the CLI equivalent ('show ip interface brief') reinforces that, but nothing is said about device reachability, authentication requirements, or timeout behavior. It adds some value via the CLI mapping yet leaves operational caveats undisclosed.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource and appends the exact CLI command as a clarifying anchor. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 values need not be described, and the single parameter is documented in the schema. The remaining gap is the absence of any behavioral context (device reachability, auth, errors) for a tool with zero annotations, but for a simple read-only listing this is nearly 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?

There is a single parameter ('device') with 100% schema description coverage ('the inventory router/switch name'), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no further detail such as naming format or whether the name must match cisco_inventory entries.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List a Cisco device's interfaces') and enumerates the returned attributes (IP address, admin/link status, line protocol state), which makes the tool's intent unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like cisco_version or cisco_inventory, but the interface-listing scope is obvious enough to route correctly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for inspecting interface state on a Cisco device. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over cisco_logs, cisco_version, or a generic run_command alternative, nor any stated prerequisites.

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