Idm Gateway Info

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 verb 'Describe' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and the output schema covers return values. However, the description does not explicitly state that it is safe, requires no auth, or has no side effects, leaving a gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the purpose and the fields returned.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. It states what the tool does and what it returns, but it lacks any usage context or explicit behavioral note, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4.

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 verb and resource ('Describe the gateway') and enumerates the exact fields returned (host, API version, mode, group, device count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on devices, protocols, streams, etc.

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 usage (call it to retrieve gateway information) but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. For a zero-parameter info tool the implied usage is somewhat evident, but the description does not actively route the agent against siblings.

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