gateway_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The [READ] prefix indicates a read-only operation, which helps, but the description doesn't disclose what happens with the default target, whether it lists all gateways or fails without a target, or what auth/permissions are needed. For a read-only status tool, the disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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 compact with a clear [READ] prefix and a brief description followed by a parameter doc in Args format. No wasted words or redundant content. It's appropriately sized for a simple status tool with one optional parameter.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return format. It lists data fields (status, loss %, RTT latency) but doesn't describe how results are structured or what failure modes look like. For a gateway status read with one optional parameter, the coverage is adequate but leaves gaps around output formatting.

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 single 'target' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds context by saying 'Firewall target name from config; omit for the default.' This explains the parameter's meaning and default behavior beyond the schema's bare 'target' property name. However, there are no enums or examples of valid target values.

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 'WAN/LAN gateways with status, loss %, and RTT latency' which clearly identifies the resource (gateways) and the data returned. The [READ] prefix signals a non-mutating operation. It's clear but doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like gateway_health_rca or interface_status, though the resource focus (gateways vs interfaces) is somewhat implicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not explain when gateway status would be preferred over gateway_health_rca, interface_status, or health_status. It only mentions the 'target' parameter for selecting a firewall, with no exclusions or context about when this tool is appropriate.

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