getGatewayDetail

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It describes the tool as fetching data and lists the returned fields, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, mention potential side effects, or any required permissions. The description is adequate but not detailed.

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 two sentences: the first clearly explains what the tool does, and the second provides a helpful prerequisite hint. No extraneous information; each word earns its place.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description lists key return items (model, firmware, etc.), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output. It does not discuss error conditions or response size, but for a simple fetch tool this is acceptable.

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 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema—only the guidance to use listDevices for the gatewayMac. This meets the baseline for a tool with full schema coverage.

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 the tool fetches 'full configuration and status for a specific gateway' and lists specific items like model, firmware, CPU/memory, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools like getGatewayHealth or getGatewayPorts which focus on subsets.

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 advises to 'Use listDevices to get the gatewayMac,' which is a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getGatewayHealth or getGatewayLanStatus, nor does it provide exclusions.

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