test_gateway

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool returns a connection status, but does not clarify if the test has side effects, requires special permissions, or has rate limits. The word 'test' implies a read-only operation, but this is not explicitly stated, which is a gap.

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 two sentences long, with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the action, and the second clarifies the HTTP method and return value. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential information: purpose, HTTP method, endpoint, and return value. However, it could be slightly more complete by mentioning whether the test is synchronous or if there are common error states. Still, it is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema has one parameter with a description, and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds context by specifying the HTTP method and endpoint, but does not provide additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already offers. According to the calibration, a 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Test gateway connection.' It also provides the HTTP method and endpoint, and specifies the return value ('gateway object with connection status'). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like 'get_gateway' which retrieve gateway info without testing.

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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_gateway.' There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. While the purpose is clear, the lack of usage direction leaves room for ambiguity.

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