getSitesGatewaysGeneralConfig

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The agent has no information about what happens if the gatewayMac is invalid or if the site is misconfigured.

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, front-loaded phrase. It is concise but lacks structure; every word earns its place but the content is minimal and could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 absence of an output schema and the existence of numerous sibling tools (e.g., getGatewayDetail), the description does not explain the return value or how this tool fits into the broader API. It is incomplete for guiding an agent on what to expect.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters (siteId, customHeaders, gatewayMac). The tool description adds no additional semantics, so 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 'Get gateway general config' clearly specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('gateway general config'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like getApGeneralConfig or getSwitchGeneralConfig. However, it does not elaborate on what 'general config' includes, which slightly reduces specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getGatewayDetail or listDevices. It lacks any context about prerequisites, selection criteria, or typical use cases.

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