gateway_access_request_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context—such as default limit behavior, status filtering semantics, pagination, or ordering—beyond what the annotation provides. It contributes minimal extra transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient and readable, but it is perhaps too brief, omitting necessary parameter and usage details. As a result, conciseness is good but at the expense of completeness.

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 two parameters with no schema descriptions, an output schema exists but its structure is unknown, and there are closely related sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter usage, expected response format, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving an agent under-informed.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention 'limit' or 'status' at all, leaving their meanings and defaults undocumented. This is a significant gap for a tool with two optional parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('access requests') with a clear scope ('created by the current user'), which distinguishes it from the admin-level list (gateway_admin_access_request_list). However, it does not explicitly name any sibling tool, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 gateway_admin_access_request_list or gateway_access_request_create. The description only states what it does, not the context or exclusions.

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