storage_gateway_get_mount_instructions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does clarify that the tool resolves either a label or an ID ('Smart identifier resolution') and that it returns instructions and configuration examples, which are useful. However, it does not mention side effects, read-only nature, authentication requirements, or error behavior. For a read-only getter, this is acceptable but not rich; thus a 3.

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 concise and well-structured: a single clear purpose sentence followed by a compact 'Args' and 'Returns' section. The most critical information (the purpose) is front-loaded, and there is no extraneous text. Every sentence adds value, making it an exemplary concise description.

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 one parameter, the description provides all necessary information: the parameter meaning, the return type (mounting instructions and configuration examples). It relies on the output schema for structural details, which is appropriate. It could have mentioned prerequisites like gateway existence, but this is a minor omission for a read-only getter, so a 4 is justified.

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 only defines a string with no description. The description adds meaning by stating 'gateway_identifier: Gateway label or ID', which clarifies the accepted formats and resolves ambiguity. Since the schema coverage is 0%, the description successfully compensates by explaining the parameter, earning a 4.

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 ('Get') and a clear resource ('NFS mount instructions for a storage gateway'). It also introduces the 'Smart identifier resolution' behavior, which distinguishes it from other storage_gateway tools that modify or list. This is enough for an agent to select this tool unambiguously among siblings like storage_gateway_create or storage_gateway_get_gateway_status.

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 the usage: when the agent needs NFS mount instructions for a storage gateway, call this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The absence of any comparative guidance lowers the score to a 3, since usage is implied but not explicit.

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