uisp_list_gateways

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It indicates a read/list operation and the returned scope (gateways with NetFlow/QoS/suspend config), but does not mention authorization, pagination, or whether the list is system-wide or scoped to a site. Adequate but not richly transparent.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, uses a parenthetical to define gateways, and ends with a compact list of configuration categories. No filler or repetition.

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 list tool, the description states what is returned and which configuration areas are included. It does not describe the output shape or call out the sibling uisp_get_gateway for single-gateway needs, but those are minor gaps for such a simple 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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and the description has no parameter semantics to add. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 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?

Uses the specific verb 'List' with a clearly defined resource ('gateways - routers configured as network gateways') and adds concrete scope: NetFlow/QoS/suspend configuration. This distinguishes it from broader tools like uisp_list_devices and from the single-item uisp_get_gateway.

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 intended use is implied by 'List gateways' and the configuration focus, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over uisp_get_gateway or uisp_list_devices, nor any exclusions. It earns a middle score for implied rather than clearly stated usage guidance.

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