manage_gateways

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'manage gateway infrastructure' but the only supported action is 'list', which is a significant discrepancy. The description does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or limitations beyond the supported action. The listed 'GATEWAY INFORMATION PROVIDED' adds some value, but the internal contradiction between 'manage' and 'list' undermines transparency.

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 uses all-caps headings and bullet lists, making it structured and easy to scan, but it is longer than necessary. Some content, such as the 'GATEWAY INFORMATION PROVIDED' and 'USE CASES' sections, is informative, but phrases like 'GATEWAY MANAGEMENT TOOL' and the repeated references to 'list' and 'manage' add redundancy. It is reasonably concise for the amount of context it provides, but not exceptionally so.

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 has an output schema, so return value details are not required from the description. The description covers use cases, an example, and the supported action, which is adequate for a simple list tool. However, the tool name 'manage_gateways' suggests broader capabilities, and the description does not clarify why only 'list' is available or whether the tool is read-only. Without annotations, the completeness is reasonable but somewhat incomplete for a tool with a misleading name.

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 100%, and the schema already documents each parameter (action, path, filter_by, json) with descriptive text. The description adds only a general mention of 'filtering' and 'list action', which does not meaningfully go beyond the schema. According to the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not hinder understanding but does not enhance it.

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 primary action 'list' with the specific resource 'available gateways' and mentions filtering, which distinguishes it from sibling tools. However, the opening line 'Monitor and manage gateway infrastructure' overstates the scope since the only supported action is list, creating mild ambiguity about the tool's actual purpose.

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 provides explicit use cases such as 'Gateway infrastructure monitoring', 'Connection troubleshooting', and 'Performance analysis', giving clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use cases are specific enough to guide appropriate usage, and the sibling tools are largely resource-specific rather than direct alternatives.

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