Inspect Hermes gateway status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'without starting, stopping, restarting, or mutating services' clarification, which reinforces safety but doesn't describe return format or what 'status' includes beyond pid/lock/log path state. The description aligns with (and slightly extends) the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

A single, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the action and scope, and efficiently clarifies the non-mutating nature. Minimal waste; clear and direct.

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?

This is a simple read-only inspection tool with 0 required parameters and an output schema available. The description covers the core purpose and safety profile adequately. The main gap is the undefined parameter semantics (home/profile/toolkit_root), but given the tool's simplicity and output schema presence, the overall burden is modestly met.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for the 3 optional parameters (home, profile, toolkit_root). However, the description does not explain what these parameters mean or how they affect the gateway path lookup. It adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema types provide.

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 ('Inspect') with a clear resource ('gateway pid/lock/log path state') and explicitly states what it does NOT do (starting, stopping, restarting, mutating services). It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like hermes_gateway_restart and hermes_status_overview, though it could name them explicitly.

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 clearly conveys a read-only inspection use case and implicitly contrasts with mutation tools (restart, start/stop), but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over hermes_status_overview or hermes_api_health which appear to overlap in the read/inspection space.

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