getGatewayPorts

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 indicates a read operation ("Get") and lists output fields, but does not disclose potential behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or authentication scope. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 three concise sentences with no redundancy: the first states the core purpose, the second contrasts with siblings, and the third provides a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lack of an output schema, the description compensates well by listing many output fields (link status, speed, IP, bytes in/out, port profile). It is complete enough for the agent to understand what the tool returns, though it could mention that it returns multiple ports.

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 input schema fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond referencing the gateway parameter and the prerequisite, but that is consistent with baseline expectations.

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 retrieves all WAN and LAN port details (link status, speed, IP, bytes, port profile) for a specific gateway, and explicitly distinguishes itself from getGatewayWanStatus and getGatewayLanStatus, 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?

The description provides context on when to use this tool (more detailed alternative to sibling WAN/LAN status tools) and a prerequisite (use listDevices to get gatewayMac). It does not explicitly exclude use cases, but the guidance is clear and helpful for agent decision-making.

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