Get one interface in full

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation)Skip, and the description adds that it returns protocol-specific detail, which is useful but not extensive. It doesn't elaborate on response size or additional side effects, but since the annotation covers the non-destructive nature, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences long, with the core purpose stated first and immediate usage guidance following. Every word earns its place, making it both concise and effective.

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 has only one parameter, full schema coverage, and a readOnlyHint, the description provides the essential information: what it returns and how to obtain the required parameter. The only minor gap is not describing the response format, but since no output schema is present, some description of return value structure could be helpful, but overall it is sufficient.

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?

The schema description for the 'name' parameter is 100% covered, providing examples. The description adds context that the name must be an exact interface id from list_interfaces, which is helpful but not essential beyond what the schema says. With full schema coverage, the baseline 3 is warranted.

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's purpose: to retrieve every field for a single interface, including protocol-specific details. It also names the required input, 'name', and distinguishes it from list_interfaces by specifying the full detail level, making it distinguishable from siblings.

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?

It explicitly instructs to 'Get the exact name from list_interfaces first,' which provides direct guidance on when to use this tool and implies that list_interfaces is for listing all interfaces while this one is for a single detailed view. This is clear usage context, though it does not list alternatives explicitly.

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