list_api_gateway_operations

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'List' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose pagination, response shape, filtering absence, or what an 'operation' contains. This is insufficient for a tool with zero structured behavior metadata.

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 conveys verb, resource, and scope without any filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the critical zone scoping is stated.

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 list call, the description plus schema is minimally viable: the agent knows the action and the required argument. However, the absence of output schema, pagination/behavior details, and any sibling differentiation leaves clear gaps, making this only an adequate definition.

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 only parameter, zone_id, is 100% covered by the schema description 'The zone ID', and the tool description reinforces it with 'for a zone'. The description adds no deeper semantic information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies the action (List), resource (API Gateway operations), and scope (for a zone). However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool list_api_shield_operations or clarify what 'API Gateway operations' precisely are, so it stops short of full disambiguation.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to prefer this tool over related siblings like list_api_shield_operations, list_api_gateway_schemas, or get_api_gateway_operation, and no indication of context or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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