list_network_interfaces

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds two non-obvious traits: no root privileges are required, and incomplete results are kept rather than erroring out. That partial-evidence behavior is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to interpret a short list. It does not discuss ordering or how missing link/speed data is presented.

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 capability scope is front-loaded in the main clause and the two trailing facts are compressed into a short fragment with no filler. The fragment style is terse to the point of being cryptic, which slightly undercuts readability.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and safety is fully covered by annotations, so the remaining burden is small. The description adequately conveys scope, privilege level and partial-result behavior; minor gaps are ordering and whether down interfaces are included.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description's enumeration of returned fields is a useful proxy for what the call surfaces, though it is not strictly parameter information.

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 verb and resource ('List local Linux interfaces') and enumerates the returned attributes (sysfs state, link speed, driver, timestamp/PHC capabilities), which clearly separates it from the time-sync and ROS siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or saying it is the inventory step preceding them.

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?

'Ordinary user' implies this is a non-privileged discovery call, and 'partial evidence retained' hints at tolerant failure, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative guidance relative to siblings like get_timestamp_capabilities or get_ptp_status. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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