list_wan_interfaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the output schema covers the return shape. However, no additional behavior is disclosed, such as whether host and site must correspond or what happens for invalid inputs.

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 short, front-loaded with the operation, and separates the parameter guidance cleanly. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter list operation with an output schema, the description provides the essential resource, scope, and parameter formats. The main remaining gap is explaining why both host and site are required together.

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 0%, so the description compensates by documenting both parameters: host accepts a console name, ID, or composite ID, and site accepts a name or ID. This adds real meaning beyond the bare string type, though examples or a clearer relationship between the two would make it stronger.

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 names an exact verb and resource: 'List WAN interfaces for a site.' This is specific enough to be told apart from siblings such as list_site_devices or update_wan_interface without inspecting the schema.

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 intended use is implied by the phrase 'for a site,' but no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over related list/read tools or when not to use it. Parameter meanings are supplied, but not usage conditions.

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