list_gateway_proxy_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only repeats the list operation and does not mention pagination, response shape, authentication requirements, or whether any account-level constraints apply beyond the schema. The read-only nature is implied by the verb but never made explicit.

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 redundant phrasing. It is concise enough for a simple list operation, though it sacrifices some useful context for brevity.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description is minimally adequate: it names the operation and the resource, and the schema documents the required account_id. However, with no output schema and no behavioral notes, an agent cannot anticipate the response format or whether the endpoint list is paginated or account-scoped beyond the parameter name.

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 coverage is 100%, and the only parameter, account_id, already has a description and maxLength constraint in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, but the schema alone is sufficient for this single required field.

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 ('List') and a distinct resource ('Gateway proxy endpoints'), making the operation clear. It differentiates from nearby siblings like list_gateway_rules and list_gateway_locations by naming a different resource type, though it adds no detail about what a proxy endpoint is.

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 alternatives such as list_gateway_rules or get_gateway_configuration. The description only states the action and provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose among the many list_* siblings.

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