get_gateway

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 discloses the behavioral effect of the detailed flag (expanding output to routes and interfaces), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, cost of the detailed expansion, or read-only nature. For a low-risk getter with an output schema, this is adequate but thin.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loading the primary return value (gateway address and interface) with the optional expansion noted parenthetically. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials and need not explain return format. The main gap is sibling routing relative to get_routes and get_interfaces, which the agent must guess at.

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% and the single 'detailed' parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does explain that detailed=true adds routes and interfaces, giving the flag real semantic meaning beyond its boolean type; only the default behavior (false) is left to the schema.

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 names a specific resource (default gateway) and its two return aspects (address and interface), which is more precise than a bare 'get gateway'. It partially differentiates from siblings like get_routes and get_interfaces by noting that detailed=true rolls those in, though it never explicitly tells the agent when to prefer the dedicated tools.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. The parenthetical implying that detailed=true subsumes routes and interfaces gives an implicit hint about overlap with get_routes/get_interfaces, but the agent must infer whether to call this or those siblings.

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