Get network interfaces

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates the safe read nature. The description adds that the tool returns address and traffic statistics, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether the optional ssh host changes data source behavior or any other side effects.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. Key information is front-loaded and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, a readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. The main gap is that it does not explicitly clarify local versus remote host behavior or recommend when to use sibling network tools.

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 input schema already provides full coverage of the single optional host parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'network interfaces', and adds specific detail about address and traffic statistics. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_network_connections or get_listening_ports, which target different network resources.

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 implies usage context through the resource name and details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_network_connections or get_listening_ports. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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