Get Gateways

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, establishing a safe, repeatable read. The description adds that it returns 'all known services' and specifies the source as 'Arch Gateway Manager', providing scope context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose output format, pagination, or any operational caveats.

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 sentence of 17 words, directly stating the action and resource with no filler. The minor typo ('know' instead of 'known') does not affect conciseness, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the scope ('all known services') and source ('Itential Platform Gateway Manager'). The presence of an output schema obviates the need to explain return values, so the description is complete for this simple tool.

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 is empty (0 parameters), so the description correctly avoids discussing parameters. With no parameters to document, the schema provides complete coverage and the description does not need to compensate, meeting the baseline for 0-parameter tools.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('list of all known services from Itential Platform Gateway Manager'), which communicates the core function. However, it uses 'services' instead of 'gateways' and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like get_services, and the typo 'know' slightly undermines clarity.

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. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or compare with get_services or other sibling tools, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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