iaas_get_compute_gateways

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note about what is returned, whether results are scoped by project/tenant, or about the absence of paging/filter parameters in a collection endpoint.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the three lines are near-duplicates ('Get compute gateways' / 'Get all compute gateways' / path) — the repetition adds no information and displaces content that would actually help, such as return shape or scope.

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?

There is no output schema and the description says nothing about what a compute gateway is or what the response contains, for a raw collection endpoint. For a simple read this is survivable, but the description is essentially an auto-generated stub and leaves the agent guessing about return fields and scope.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (apiVersion) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the meaning. The description does not mention apiVersion at all, but per the high-coverage baseline this is an acceptable 3.

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 names a verb and resource ('Get compute gateways', 'Get all compute gateways') so the agent can tell it lists gateways rather than fetching a single one. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling iaas_get_compute_gateway (singular), and the third line merely repeats the REST path. Purpose is inferable but not sharpened beyond the tool name.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus iaas_get_compute_gateway, or on any prerequisites/filters. The 'all' wording hints at scope but no exclusions or alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer list-vs-single selection from the tool names alone.

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