get_gateway_configuration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose account-scoped requirements, return shape, or any caveats about the configuration response. It largely restates what the name already signals.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and easy to parse, though it sacrifices useful context that could have been added without much bloat.

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 simple one-parameter GET-like tool, this is minimally adequate: the schema covers account_id and the description identifies what is being fetched. However, with no output schema and no annotations, there is no information about what specific configuration fields will be returned or any prerequisites beyond account_id.

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 100% for the single required account_id parameter, so the schema already documents it adequately. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('Zero Trust Gateway configuration settings'), which goes beyond the tool name by naming the product area. It is distinct from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related getters like list_gateway_rules or get_api_gateway_config.

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 the many sibling getters, nor any indication of when it should not be used. The intended usage is only implied by the verb and resource in the description.

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