getGatewayDetail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not mention permissions, side effects (likely safe as a read operation), or potential performance impact. The description is straightforward 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?

Two highly focused sentences: first lists data returned, second gives prerequisite. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description accounts for the tool's 3 parameters, prerequisite, and return scope (configuration and status fields). Without an output schema, it adequately informs the agent of what to expect.

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 minimal value beyond the schema; it reiterates the gatewayMac prerequisite already in the schema description. No parameter details beyond schema are provided.

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's purpose: 'Fetch full configuration and status for a specific gateway' and lists key data elements (model, firmware, CPU/memory, etc.). It differentiates from sibling tools (e.g., getApDetail, getSwitchDetail) by specifying it's for gateways.

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 explicitly mentions a prerequisite: 'Use listDevices to get the gatewayMac.' While it doesn't specify when not to use this tool, the sibling context provides clear distinction.

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