gateway_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe-read profile, so the '[READ]' prefix adds nothing beyond it. The description does earn some credit by disclosing the returned signals (status, loss %, RTT latency), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about polling cost, caching, or failure behavior.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the resource and returned fields come first, then the args. Every sentence earns its place. The '[READ]' tag is mildly redundant with the annotation but is cheap and conventional.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is measured and how to scope it by target. Missing only edge-case behavior (unknown target, unreachable gateway) and any note on interpreting loss/RTT values.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does explain the single parameter: a firewall target name sourced from config, with omission falling back to the default. That is meaningfully more than the schema's bare anyOf/string typing, though it doesn't clarify valid name forms or whether 'default' is a configured target.

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?

Names the resource (WAN/LAN gateways) and the specific data returned (status, loss %, RTT latency), which is more concrete than most of its *_status siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from gateway_health_rca or health_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus gateway_health_rca, health_status, or interface_status — the sibling set makes that ambiguity meaningful. The only usage-like text is the parameter note about omitting target for the default, which is invocation help, not tool selection guidance.

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