List named MCP gateways

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the HTTP GET method and authorization class 'board', which provides minor additional context. It does not explain what a 'named MCP gateway' is or what the response contains (though an output schema exists). The description adds some value beyond annotations but is still limited.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded, with no fluff. It repeats the title but adds the HTTP method and auth class. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient for the information provided.

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 an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it fails to state that the tool lists all gateways for a company, or mention any filtering or pagination. For a simple single-parameter tool, it is moderately complete but could be improved by clarifying the scope (all gateways for a company).

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%, and the description does not explain the required 'companyId' parameter. The implicit mention in the URL path is insufficient. The agent must infer that companyId is the company identifier, but no format or usage details are given.

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 it lists named MCP gateways, repeating the title. The HTTP method and auth class are added. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also list gateways (e.g., pc_get_mcp_gateways_by_gateway_public_id lists a specific gateway). The purpose is clear but lacks explicit 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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like pc_get_mcp_gateways_by_gateway_public_id or pc_post_companies_by_company_id_tools_gateways. The sibling tool list is extensive but no guidance is given.

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