storage_gateway_list_by_region

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a list (read-only) and returns gateways, but it doesn't disclose pagination, sorting, whether the region filter is exact or partial, or what happens with invalid region codes. The return type is mentioned but not detailed.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args/Returns structure is clear and easy to scan. It earns its place without unnecessary fluff, though the Returns section is somewhat redundant with the output schema.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases like invalid regions, empty results, or how the output is structured beyond 'list of gateways'. Given the output schema exists, the return format is covered, but behavioral details like error handling are missing.

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 explain the 'region' parameter with examples ('ewr', 'lax', 'fra'), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify the expected format (e.g., case sensitivity, full names vs codes) or whether the region must match a known region list.

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 lists storage gateways filtered by region, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like storage_gateway_list_by_type and storage_gateway_list_by_status by focusing on region filtering, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 specifying the region parameter and its purpose, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like storage_gateway_list_by_type or storage_gateway_list_by_status. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the use case, but explicit guidance is missing.

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