getGatewayDetail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It correctly indicates a read operation ('Fetch') and lists the data fields returned, but does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive, nor does it mention error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise with only two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and details, and the second provides an actionable instruction. No redundant or irrelevant information is present.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently states what the tool returns (a list of configuration and status fields) and the prerequisite for the required parameter. However, it could be improved by mentioning the return format (e.g., JSON structure) or default behavior when 'siteId' is omitted, as the schema notes a default site.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context for the 'gatewayMac' parameter by directing users to listDevices, but does not provide additional semantic information for 'siteId' or 'customHeaders' beyond what the schema already includes. Minimal value added.

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 ('Fetch') and explicitly lists the resources returned (model, firmware, CPU/memory, WAN/LAN ports, routing mode, feature flags), making the tool's purpose clear. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like listDevices by instructing to use that tool to obtain the required parameter.

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 provides clear guidance on how to obtain the required 'gatewayMac' parameter ('Use listDevices to get the gatewayMac'), which serves as a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getApDetail or getSwitchDetail, though the name and scope imply it is for gateways.

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