wafle_gateways_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description correctly aligns. It adds valuable privacy/disclosure behavior: 'Secrets are NEVER returned (only `{set:true}` markers).' This goes beyond the annotations by explaining how sensitive data is handled, which is important for an agent deciding to invoke the tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence earns its place: the first states the operation and key attributes, the second provides the use case and the crucial security note. No fluff or redundancy.

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 no parameters, a rich annotation set, and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the resource scope, the returned fields, the use case, and the critical secret-handling behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description instead describes what the returned data includes (type, currency, active flag, store association), which adds some semantic value beyond the empty schema. This meets the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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?

States the action clearly: 'List all payment gateways across all stores (master view).' It specifies the resource (payment gateways), scope (all stores), and nature (master view), which differentiates it from create/delete/update/test siblings. The 'master view' phrase further distinguishes it from any store-specific listing tool.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use to audit which stores have which gateways configured.' This gives a clear when-to-use scenario. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks the full exclusions/alternatives guidance that would earn a 5.

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