describe_gateway_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies the tool is read-only ('查看') and focuses on schema inspection rather than execution, which is useful. But it does not disclose the effect of the include_output_schema flag, error behavior, or return format details beyond the schema, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 two-sentence Chinese sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('按工具名查看单个 gateway 工具的详细 schema') and then adds a concise workflow. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has only 2 parameters and an output schema, and the description provides a clear workflow. However, the lack of any mention of the optional include_output_schema parameter and no guidance on expected output beyond the schema leaves it incomplete for a user trying to fully leverage the tool's options.

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 must compensate. It explains the 'name' parameter via '按工具名', but it completely omits the 'include_output_schema' parameter, which is a boolean with a default. Thus, only half the parameters are addressed, and the description adds limited value over the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: view the detailed schema of a single gateway tool by name. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_gateway_tools (searching) and call_gateway_tool (invoking), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It gives explicit workflow guidance: '先用 search_gateway_tools 搜，再按需 describe' (first search with search_gateway_tools, then describe as needed), which tells the user when to use this tool relative to the search tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude call_gateway_tool or mention when not to use it, so it slightly misses full when-not coverage.

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