gateway_metrics

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

readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already establish the safety profile, so the description only needs to add useful behavioral context. It adds the default 24-hour lookback, but it does not clarify timezone handling, how aggregation affects results, or what 'status' refers to. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The returned metric dimensions are front-loaded, and the default time window is stated efficiently in a short second sentence.

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 read-only query tool with an output schema and self-descriptive parameter names, the description covers the returned dimensions and the default time window. However, it leaves open time format/zone details and aggregation semantics, so it is adequate but not fully complete for a 4-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining gateway_id, start/end format, and aggregation behavior. It only alludes to the default time window with 'last 24 hours' and does not explain any parameter details. Parameter names are self-descriptive, but the description itself adds almost no parameter-level meaning.

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 specifies the metric resource (gateway RX/TX packet counts and duty-cycle usage) and the grouping dimensions (frequency, DR, status), which clearly separates it from gateway_get and device_metrics. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', but the noun phrase and data detail make the function unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use gateway_metrics versus device_metrics or other sibling tools, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The only contextual addition is a default 24-hour window, which is more about behavior than about choosing this tool over another.

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