MCP Gateway

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so effectively by disclosing key behavioral traits: it explains the cause of disabling ('high error rate'), the auto-recovery mechanism ('auto-recover after the configured cooldown period'), and the default cooldown time ('default 5 min'), though it could mention output format or error handling.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional context in a second sentence, and ends with a usage guideline—all sentences are essential with zero waste, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's complexity (listing disabled capabilities with recovery details) and no annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, behavior, and usage. However, it lacks details on the output structure (e.g., format of entries) or potential errors, leaving a minor gap.

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?

Since there are 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here, but does not detract from the schema's completeness.

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 specific action ('List capabilities that have been automatically disabled due to a high error rate') and resource ('capabilities'), distinguishing it from siblings like gateway_list_servers or gateway_list_tools by focusing on disabled capabilities rather than general listings.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('List capabilities that have been automatically disabled') and provides a clear alternative for manual re-enablement ('Use gateway_revive_server to manually re-enable an entire backend immediately'), guiding the agent on tool selection based on the desired outcome.

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