public_gateway_get_gateway

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

The description conveys a read operation ('Get details') but no annotations are provided. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. The read-only nature is clear but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. Every part serves a purpose.

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 get operation with an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description is nearly complete. It could mention error behavior, but given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the description adds little beyond 'by ID'. It reinforces the gateway_id parameter but does not provide additional meaning for the zone parameter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'details of a single Public Gateway by ID'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like public_gateway_list_gateways and public_gateway_create_gateway.

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 when you have a gateway ID, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like list_gateways. Usage context is minimal.

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