list_ai_gateway_evaluations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys only a read-style 'List' operation and says nothing about return format, pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or side effects. Even a brief statement about what a successful response contains would meaningfully improve transparency.

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 six-word sentence with zero filler and the verb front-loaded. It is efficient and every word earns its place. However, the brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness, since essential behavioral and usage details are absent.

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 tool with two required parameters and no nested objects, the schema covers the parameter side completely. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the response shape and behavioral characteristics undisclosed, and nothing in the sibling set offers disambiguation hints. A single sentence about the returned evaluations would make this adequately complete.

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% — both account_id ('The account ID') and gateway_id ('The AI Gateway ID') already carry one-line definitions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, such as how gateway_id relates to account_id or how to discover valid IDs. With full schema coverage, a neutral baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('evaluations') scoped to 'an AI Gateway,' which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling tools like list_ai_gateway_datasets, list_ai_gateway_routes, and the singular get_ai_gateway_evaluation. The resource noun 'evaluations' is unique within the AI Gateway sibling set, so selection is unambiguous. It is terse and adds no detail about scope or filtering, but it is not a tautology.

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 this tool versus the nearby get_ai_gateway_evaluation (single item) or other list_ai_gateway_* sibling tools. The description neither names an alternative nor states a condition for choosing between list and get variants. The only usage signal is the verb 'List,' leaving the decision entirely to inference.

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