gateway_health_rca

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the threshold defaults (5% loss, 150ms RTT), the live-pull-vs-injected-rows behavior, and the fact that rankings carry raw numbers rather than a black-box verdict. It does not mention rate limits or auth requirements, so it isn't exhaustive.

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?

Front-loads the core operation and its [READ] tag, then layers behavior, args, and returns in an easy-to-scan structure. Slightly long with minor redundancy between the opening line and the follow-up paragraph, but every section 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?

There is no output schema, so the description's return-value documentation (gatewaysEvaluated, downCount, degradedCount, thresholds, worst[] with cause/action) is essential and present. All four parameters are explained and the read-only nature is clear, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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 carries the burden, and it largely does: it defines loss_pct and latency_ms as degradation thresholds with defaults, spells out the shape of injected 'gateways' rows ({name, address, status, lossPercent, rttMs}), and describes 'target' as a config firewall name. That's substantially more meaning than the bare schema types provide.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource (rank gateways by loss+latency) plus the distinctive RCA behavior (map each down/degraded gateway to cause + action). This clearly separates it from the raw-status sibling 'gateway_status' without needing to name it, since ranking and root-cause attribution are the differentiating actions.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent the two usage modes: pass 'gateways' for pure analysis of injected rows, or a target for a live pull. That's clear context, but it names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for raw status without RCA, use gateway_status'), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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