list_vm_network_interfaces

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description reveals important runtime behavior: it reads via the Supervisor K8s API, discovers the served CRD version at runtime, returns a structured list envelope, and handles a VM without a network block by returning an empty list rather than an error. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema alone.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: a concise one-line summary, the data source and return envelope, a key edge case, and prerequisite guidance. There is no fluff or repetition of the schema, and the most important scoping information is front-laoded.

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?

The description is complete for this tool given its moderate complexity and the lack of an output schema: it explains what is returned, the empty-list behavior, the backend accessed, and how to supply the required parameters. An agent can select and invoke this tool correctly without needing additional context.

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 already covers all parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by telling the agent how to obtain values: run list_namespaces for the namespace and source the VM name from the VM inventory in that namespace. It also implies that target is optional by not needing explanation, while the schema already gives its default.

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: 'List the network interfaces (multi-NIC) of one VirtualMachine.' It names the exact data source (spec.network.interfaces[] on a VM Service VirtualMachine via the Supervisor K8s API) and clearly scopes this to a single VM, distinguishing it from the sibling VM listing tools.

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 practical usage context: run list_namespaces to obtain the namespace and use the VM name from the VM inventory in that namespace. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the single-VM scoping and prerequisites make the intended use clear.

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