tg_list_gateways

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'List' implies read-only, but no details are given about return size, ordering, or whether results can be filtered. The tool's safety profile is not clarified beyond the implied read operation.

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 extremely concise at three words. While not wasteful, it omits helpful context that could be added without verbosity. It is not poorly structured, but it borders on under-specification.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values or behaviors. It does not, leaving the agent uninformed about what a 'list' returns. The tool is simple, but minimal completeness is not met.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but per the rubric, zero parameters yields a baseline score of 4.

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 'List transit gateways' clearly states the action (list) and resource (transit gateways). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tg_create_gateway (create) and tg_list_connections (list connections). However, it lacks details on scope or filtering, which is acceptable for a parameterless tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vpc_list_public_gateways or when not to use it. The description is a bare statement with no context for appropriate use cases.

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