getGatewayLanStatus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the returned data but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. For a gateway status tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a clear prerequisite. No unnecessary words 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 provides a good overview of the tool's output and a prerequisite step. Without an output schema, it explains the returned attributes adequately, though it could be more explicit about the output structure (e.g., list of 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 documentation covers 100% of parameters, so the description adds minimal value beyond reiterating the prerequisite. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not highlight additional constraints or format details.

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 it retrieves LAN port status for a specific gateway and lists the specific attributes (link state, speed, duplex, connected device, VLAN). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like getGatewayPorts or getGatewayWanStatus.

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 a prerequisite instruction (use listDevices to get gatewayMac) but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No comparison to related tools is given.

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