get_interface_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful internal behavior—'Resolves the Interface-family DataSource and the instance matching the interface name'—which helps the agent understand how interface selection works. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core action and metric scope are front-loaded, the user-intent gloss is economical, and the internal resolution detail is placed at the end where it adds context without obscuring the main purpose.

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 fully documented parameters and comprehensive safety annotations, the description gives an agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains the metric scope, time window, and internal resolution step. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the mention of 'datapoints' and the listed metric families.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with all four parameters described. The description adds some color by naming metric families and the interface-resolution behavior, but it does not substantially augment the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the complete schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Pull interface-level metrics' for 'a device's interface over a time window.' It enumerates metric families and explicitly frames the tool as answering 'how is this port performing?', which clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented or service-level metric siblings like get_device_interfaces or get_trace_service_metrics.

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?

The description gives a clear decision context by framing the use case as 'Answers how is this port performing?' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intent is unambiguous within the large sibling set.

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