tenki_list_ssh_gateways

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'currently active' scoping but does not describe return format, pagination, or gateway object fields. This is acceptable given the low-risk read-only nature, but it adds only moderate behavioral context.

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 focused sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, and scope are front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 simple, read-only list operation with one optional parameter fully documented in the schema and safety annotations present, this description is complete. The output is self-evident from the verb 'list', and nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 input schema fully documents the only parameter, workspace_id, including the default behavior. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('SSH gateways'), a status qualifier ('currently active'), and a scope ('workspace'). This clearly differentiates it from the many sibling list tools such as tenki_list_sandboxes, tenki_list_exposed_ports, and tenki_list_volumes.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to enumerate active SSH gateways for a workspace. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can infer when this is the appropriate tool among the sibling list operations.

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