Gateway Status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering the core safety profile. The description adds valuable context about what information is returned ('connection state, IP addresses, and tunnel mode') and explains that gateways 'provide external user access to published resources,' which helps the agent understand the tool's domain. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, details returned, and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what the tool does and what information it provides, the second explains when to use it. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and comprehensive annotations, the description provides excellent context about what information is returned and when to use it. The only minor gap is the lack of an output schema, but the description compensates by listing specific data points returned. This is nearly complete for this type of tool.

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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs. A baseline of 4 is applied for tools with zero parameters, as no parameter semantics are required.

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 action ('Get the status'), the resource ('RAS Secure Client Gateways'), and specific details included ('connection state, IP addresses, and tunnel mode'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on gateway status rather than other infrastructure components like agents, certificates, or connection brokers.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this to monitor gateway health or troubleshoot external connectivity issues.' It provides clear context about the tool's purpose (monitoring/troubleshooting) and distinguishes it from other tools that might handle configuration, administration, or other aspects of the RAS infrastructure.

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