get_gateway_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. The verb 'Return' conveys a read-only operation and the listed fields indicate what information is exposed, but it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or explicitly state that no changes are made.

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 sentence that names the action, the resource, and representative data categories without wasting words. It is appropriately concise for a no-argument read tool.

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 parameterless read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and content. It could be slightly more explicit about when to use it or what kind of response to expect, but the output schema and the absence of parameters reduce the need for additional detail.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context by naming the kinds of configuration values returned, even though there are no parameters to document.

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 and resource: 'Return the deCONZ gateway configuration', and enumerates concrete content such as firmware, network, and Zigbee channel. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on lights, groups, sensors, rules, or scenes.

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 indicates the tool is for retrieving overall gateway configuration, which is distinct from the other listed tools. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool appears to serve the same purpose, so the intended usage is reasonably clear.

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