getGatewayPorts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the specific data returned (link status, speed, IP, bytes, port profile) and implies it is a read operation (get). It does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits, but for a straightforward read tool, this is adequate. The description does not contradict any annotations.

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 only two sentences long and front-loads the main purpose and output fields in the first sentence. The second sentence provides valuable sibling comparison and a usage prerequisite. Every word earns its place with zero 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should hint at return structure. It lists the kinds of fields returned but does not specify whether the response is an array or object, nor does it mention nested objects (context signal indicates nested objects). This is a moderate gap, but the description is still informative enough for most use cases.

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 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds value by advising to use listDevices to obtain gatewayMac, which helps the agent understand the prerequisite. The schema already explains siteId and customHeaders semantics, so the description adds marginal but useful context.

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 explicitly states it retrieves all WAN and LAN port details for a specific gateway and lists the specific fields (link status, speed, IP address, bytes, port profile). It distinguishes this tool from less detailed siblings (getGatewayWanStatus, getGatewayLanStatus), making the purpose crystal clear.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (when detailed port info is needed) and points to less detailed alternatives. It also advises to use listDevices to get the gatewayMac. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if only wan status is needed), but the comparison to siblings implicitly covers that.

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