get_gateways

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get the list', which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or side effects. It adds no insight beyond what the tool name already conveys, such as whether it returns all entries or supports filtering (though 'all known' hints at scope).

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 with no fluff, directly stating what the tool does. However, it contains a typo ('know' instead of 'known') and uses 'services' inconsistently with the tool name, which slightly detracts from clarity. The structure is otherwise appropriately concise.

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 tool has no parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly sufficient but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like get_services. It does not clarify whether 'services' are the same as 'gateways' or discuss any access requirements. The ambiguity with the tool name and the lack of usage context make it incomplete for an agent to confidently select it.

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 no properties, so there are 0 parameters, earning a baseline of 4. The description reinforces that this is an unfiltered list by saying 'all know services', adding slight semantic value. It does not need to explain parameters since none exist.

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 states the tool gets a list of 'services' from 'Itential Platform Gateway Manager', which is a specific verb and resource. However, the tool name is 'get_gateways' and the description says 'services' instead of 'gateways', creating ambiguity. This mismatch makes it unclear whether it actually returns gateways or a distinct entity called services, and it could be confused with the sibling 'get_services'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool (e.g., get_services) would be more appropriate. The presence of many sibling tools makes this lack of context particularly problematic.

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