get_interface_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It signals a non-persistent, live read of current state and enumerates the values returned, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about required permissions, whether it is strictly read-only, or behavior on an invalid interface.

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 tight sentence with the key noun ('Live interface state') front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the usage gap that other dimensions penalize.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields, partially compensating for the missing return documentation. But it omits usage context relative to sibling interface tools and any behavioral/permission detail, leaving meaningful gaps for a 2-parameter status tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both vdom and interface, including the default note for vdom. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 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 resource (interface state) and enumerates the fields returned (link, speed, IP, traffic counters), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. However it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_interface or list_interfaces, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no reference to the sibling tools (get_interface, list_interfaces) that an agent must choose between. The word 'Live' faintly implies real-time status versus config, but this is inference, not guidance.

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