vscode_inspect_live_gateways

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It makes the read-only nature clear through 'Queries' and adds useful behavioral context such as real-time status, sub-millisecond latency, and the full scope of 13 gateways. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but the query nature reduces the need for those caveats.

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 with no filler: the first sentence states what the tool does, its scope, and what data it returns; the second gives the recommended use case. The action is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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 simple read-only status tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It names the queried fields, the exact scope of all 13 gateways, and the intended usage scenario, so an agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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 already documents the single parameter fully: filter_protocol has an enum, an optional marker, and a default value. The description adds nothing about the parameter, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because schema coverage is 100% and no additional meaning is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Queries') and names the exact resource ('all 13 official SEOSiri Cloudflare edge gateways'), along with the data returned: real-time operational status, sub-millisecond response latency, and supported protocol transports. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling config/generation/audit/sync tools.

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 the tool: 'Use to verify network connectivity before invoking remote MCP tools.' This gives a clear trigger scenario, though it does not mention when not to use it or name direct alternatives.

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