storage_gateway_get_gateway_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the smart identifier resolution behavior (label or ID accepted) and the return scope (health, exports, network configuration), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential errors, or any side effects, though the name and 'Get' verb imply a safe read.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The smart identifier resolution note and return summary are useful and concise. It could be slightly more structured with explicit sections, but every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does, what the parameter means, and what the return includes. It doesn't mention error cases or when to prefer sibling status tools, but the output schema and simple parameter reduce the need for more.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the single parameter gateway_identifier accepts a gateway label or ID, adding meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema. This fully covers the parameter's semantics, though it doesn't provide examples or format details.

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 retrieves comprehensive status information for a storage gateway, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('storage gateway'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like storage_gateway_get_mount_instructions and storage_gateway_get_cost_analysis by focusing on health, exports, and network configuration, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 implies usage context by noting it returns health, exports, and network configuration, which suggests when an agent needs gateway status. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like storage_gateway_list_by_status or storage_gateway_get_mount_instructions, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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