getGatewayHealth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions auto-discovery and optional skip-discovery, which is good. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or any side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and use cases. No filler words; every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return fields (CPU, memory, firmware, ports, WAN/LAN statuses). It covers the composite nature and parameter behavior, making it complete 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?

Schema coverage is 67% (customHeaders not described). The description adds meaning: siteId can be omitted to use default, and gatewayMac can be provided to skip discovery. These clarifications go beyond 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 clearly states the tool is a 'Composite gateway health check' that auto-discovers the site gateway and retrieves full detail (CPU, memory, firmware, ports), WAN port statuses, and LAN interface statuses. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getGatewayDetail, getGatewayWanStatus, getGatewayLanStatus.

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?

Provides explicit scenarios: 'Use when diagnosing internet connectivity issues, WAN failover, or gateway performance problems.' However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or explicitly name alternatives.

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