getGatewayPorts

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') and lists output fields, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, response structure, or error behavior. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Three sentences, each with a clear purpose: what the tool does, its advantage over siblings, and a prerequisite. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Without an output schema, the description lists output fields but not the structure (e.g., array per port). Given 3 params and nested objects, it is somewhat complete but could specify return format more clearly.

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%, so parameters are well-described in schema. The description adds a hint for gatewayMac ('Use listDevices'), but otherwise adds no new semantic meaning 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 uses a specific verb 'Get all WAN and LAN port details' and resource 'gateway', listing output fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools getGatewayWanStatus and getGatewayLanStatus by noting it is more detailed.

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 explicitly states when to use (when detailed port info is needed) and mentions alternatives (less detailed siblings) and a prerequisite (use listDevices to get gatewayMac). No explicit when-not or exclusion, but sufficient guidance.

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