gateway_statusHolistic health overview: all 19 tools, current license status, billing info, and Quezar vault statistics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No | System health overview and tool counts. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful scope context ('all 19 tools, current license status, billing info, Quezar vault statistics'), but it does not disclose additional operational behavioral details such as potential latency, permission requirements, or whether the view is cached.
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 one tightly structured sentence that leads with the core purpose ('Holistic health overview') and enumerates the included areas. There is no redundancy or filler, and it leaves out details that are already in the annotations and schema.
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 fully adequate for a zero-parameter, read-only status tool that has a rich annotations set and an output schema. The output schema handles return-value details, so the description only needs to state the aggregate scope, which it does effectively.
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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the empty schema; per the rubric, the baseline is 4. The description effectively explains what the tool returns, which is the only semantic the agent needs.
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 states a specific purpose: a 'Holistic health overview' covering all 19 tools, license status, billing info, and Quezar vault statistics. This makes it clearly distinguishable from the more focused sibling status tools like engine_maxion_status, security_diamonize_status, and storage_quezar_status.
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 provides clear context by indicating this is the system-wide, aggregate health check, which implies it should be used when a global view is needed rather than a subsystem-specific status tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the 'all 19 tools' scope makes the intended usage evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct name and purpose within its domain (billing, engine, media, security, storage, gateway). While there is some semantic overlap (e.g., engine_maxion_status vs. engine_maxion_diagnostics), the specific functions are clear enough to avoid misselection.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: some tools use domain_entity_action (engine_maxion_activate), others use domain_action (billing_activate), and one uses just domain_status (gateway_status). The inclusion of 'lineage0' and '0' suffixes adds further irregularity.
19 tools is on the higher end but justifiable for a multi-service gateway. However, several tools are stubs (NOT IMPLEMENTED), and there are multiple status/diagnostic tools per domain, which makes the set feel padded rather than tightly scoped.
The tool surface is incomplete in several areas: security lacks functional quarantine and logging, engine lacks a working deactivate, and there is no way to manage billing subscriptions or view media history beyond a simple archive list. The presence of explicitly NOT IMPLEMENTED tools highlights these gaps.