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 well. It discloses key behavioral traits: it triggers an immediate action, returns a summary of changes, and notes limitations (server host/port changes are reported but not applied). This covers mutation effects and output behavior adequately.

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 action, followed by return details and limitations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and key constraints. However, it could briefly mention error cases or prerequisites, but the coverage is strong for the context.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior and output instead.

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 ('trigger an immediate reload of config.yaml from disk') and resource ('gateway'), distinguishing it from siblings like gateway_kill_server or gateway_revive_server. It goes beyond the title by specifying the config file and the no-restart requirement.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (to reload config without restarting) and implicitly when not to use it (for server host/port changes, which require a restart). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like gateway_kill_server for full restarts or compare to other config-related tools.

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