getGatewayLanStatus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the output fields but does not mention any side effects, authorization requirements, or error behaviors (e.g., what happens if the gateway is offline). The description is adequate for a simple read operation but leaves some 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?

The description consists of two sentences: the first defines the purpose and returned data, the second provides a prerequisite hint. There is no extraneous information, and the key action is front-loaded. Every word serves a clear function.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects in input), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and how to get a required parameter. It could be more explicit about the output structure (e.g., indicating it returns an object per port), but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand its usage.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds the hint to use listDevices for gatewayMac, but this is already present in the parameter's description. The added value beyond the schema is minimal, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'LAN port status' for a specific gateway, listing the exact details returned (link state, speed, duplex, connected device, VLAN assignment). This distinguishes it from siblings like getGatewayPorts or getGatewayWanStatus, which target different port types or statuses.

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 includes a prerequisite directive ('Use listDevices to get the gatewayMac.'), which guides the agent on how to obtain a required parameter. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternative tools, such as specifying that this should be used only for LAN port details and not for WAN or general gateway information.

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