lan.gateway

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a passive read but says nothing about whether the call is local-only, what happens when no default gateway exists, or whether results are cached/live — meaningful gaps for a network probe tool.

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?

Seven words with no filler, but the '+' notation reads like a field list rather than a sentence. It is terse to the point of under-specification, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields (gateway, interface, subnet CIDR) is the right instinct and partially compensates for the missing output schema. It still omits behavioral context such as failure modes and whether the data is local-scope only.

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 schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies; the entry is correctly parameterless.

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 fragment 'Default gateway + interface + local subnet CIDR' names the three data points it surfaces, which implicitly separates it from siblings like lan.interfaces and lan.arp. However, there is no verb or return framing ('retrieves', 'returns'), so the agent must infer that this is a read of network configuration rather than a setter or a diagnostic.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. An agent cannot tell from this description whether to call lan.gateway or lan.interfaces for interface data, nor whether it needs to be on the local network.

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