Gateway Connect

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and safe properties, but the description fails to explain the behavioral implications of the five modes (connect, delegate, handover, revoke, probe). The description adds minimal context beyond 'bridge', leaving the agent uninformed about what each mode does and whether they involve state changes.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, missing parameter and behavior explanations.

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 tool has 5 parameters with zero schema descriptions and no explanation of modes or parameters in the description, it is severely incomplete. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional context.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The description does not compensate by explaining any of the five parameters (mode, target_agent, etc.), leaving the agent to infer meaning solely from parameter names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 it is a 'bridge to other federation agents' and lists specific targets (GEOX, WEALTH, etc.), indicating a cross-organ coordination tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'arif_bridge_connect' which likely has similar purpose.

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?

It provides a clear use case ('cross-organ tasks and multi-agent coordination'), but no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings, such as arif_bridge or arif_bridge_connect.

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