infra

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose output behavior (compact JSON by default, expandable via detail/limit), which is genuine value. However, it says nothing about the side effects, permissions, or reversibility of the mutating modes (provision, connect, disconnect, optimize, evolve) — a serious omission for a gateway that can change infrastructure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the mode inventory and ending with the response-shaping hint. It is dense but every clause is doing something, though the slash-separated verb chains read as shorthand rather than prose.

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?

This is a 9-mode gateway funneling everything through one free-text field with no output schema, and the description never explains what shape the request should take per mode beyond brief schema examples. For a tool with this much behavioral surface, the description is under-specified.

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% and the schema already documents both mode (enum) and request (with example strings and flags). The description repeats the mode list and the detail/limit flags without adding per-mode request format guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Identifies the tool as a gateway and pairs each mode with a rough noun (partners, stack, cashback/portal), so an agent knows it is a multi-mode infra multiplexer. But the mode-to-task mapping is telegraphic slash-lists, and 'infra' plus verbs like 'evolve' don't tell the agent concretely what any single mode does.

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 only actionable guidance is 'add detail=1 or limit=N in request for more', which governs response verbosity rather than tool/mode selection. Nothing explains when to pick compare versus status, or whether provision/connect require prerequisites; the agent must guess at mode choice. No siblings exist, so no alternative routing is needed, but mode selection guidance is absent.

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