gateway_status

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation ('view') and lists the data shown, which is helpful. However, it omits any mention of permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects, leaving some ambiguity for a status 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 concise sentence that states the purpose directly without any redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and target, making it easy to parse.

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?

While the tool appears simple and an output schema exists, the complete absence of parameter semantics and usage guidance leaves gaps. The description covers the core purpose but not the operational context needed for an agent to invoke it correctly with optional parameters.

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%, and the description mentions none of the three parameters (server, profile, verbose). The agent gets no explanation of their meaning or effect, so the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter details.

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 views the health status, prefix, and tool count of configured gateway sub-services. It uses a specific verb ('view') and identifies a distinct resource, differentiating it from sibling tools that search, describe, or call specific 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_gateway_tools or describe_gateway_tool. There are no exclusions or contextual hints about appropriate scenarios.

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