storage_gateway_list_by_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it returns a list of gateways, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, describe potential errors, or mention any side effects or safety guarantees.

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, front-loads the purpose, and uses clear 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. There is no unnecessary filler or redundancy. Each sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan.

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 presence of multiple storage_gateway_list_by_* siblings, the description should mention how it differs or when to use it. It also does not describe the allowed status values or whether listing is limited/paginated. The output schema exists, but the description alone leaves important context gaps for an agent to choose this tool confidently.

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 schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the status parameter as 'Status to filter by' and gives examples ('active', 'pending'), which adds meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema. However, it does not specify allowed values or formats, so compensation is only partial.

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?

Description clearly states 'List storage gateways by status' with a specific verb and resource. It provides enough to understand the core action, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like storage_gateway_list_by_region or storage_gateway_list_by_type, relying on the tool name for that distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of the sibling list tools (by region, by type). An agent has no information to decide between them other than the tool name, and there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context clues.

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