gateway.config_status

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

The description explicitly states 'read-only' and mentions 'non-secret diagnostics', indicating safety. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose potential behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects beyond being read-only.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes relevant qualifiers. Every word contributes meaning without 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?

Given the lack of parameters, output schema, and annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does (config and startup policy status with diagnostics). It could be slightly improved by hinting at the output format or common use cases, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 zero parameters, so the schema itself is complete. The description does not need to add parameter details. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 tool shows 'read-only effective configuration and startup policy status' with additional details like source attribution and diagnostics. It specifies a verb 'Show' and a well-defined resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_startup_policy' which focuses only on startup policy.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'gateway.get_startup_policy', 'gateway.describe', or other read-only tools. Without context, an agent may struggle to choose between similar tools.

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