start_gateway

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return value (dictionary with success status and gateway details) but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, prerequisites (e.g., Docker daemon), or behavior if the gateway is already running. This is a state-changing operation, so more transparency is needed.

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 succinct, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the return format is cleanly separated. Every sentence earns its place without extraneous detail.

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?

The description covers the core function and return shape, and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not necessary. However, it lacks important contextual details: when to use this tool relative to start/stop/status siblings, prerequisites, and idempotency concerns. For a simple side-effectful tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly provides no parameter information, and the input schema confirms no parameters 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 ('Start') and the specific resource ('Docker MCP Gateway') intended for tool execution. This distinguishes it from siblings like stop_gateway and gateway_status.

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 phrase 'for tool execution' implies this is a prerequisite for running tools, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or what conditions must be met beforehand. No exclusionary or alternative-tool guidance is provided.

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