gateway_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Show' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the description discloses what content will be displayed. It does not mention authentication or output format, but those are less critical for a zero-parameter status read.

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?

A single, well-front-loaded sentence that contains no filler. Every phrase adds informational value.

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 zero-parameter status tool, the description adequately covers purpose and content. It could mention whether the output is formatted as a summary or detailed report, but the core usage context is clear given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so parameter-level semantics are not needed. The description meaningfully explains what the tool reports, making the lack of parameters a non-issue.

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 names a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('active gateway configuration'), and lists concrete contents (field masking rules, table policies, audit settings). It clearly stands apart from the table-oriented sibling tools.

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 this tool is for inspecting gateway configuration rather than querying or describing tables, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings or mention any exclusions.

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