get_tier0_gateway

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns a dict with specific fields, and notes 'Static config only — it does not say whether the gateway is currently forwarding.' This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

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 well-structured with sections for usage, return details, limitations, and args. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy or fluff, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields (id, display_name, ha_mode, etc.) and clarifying the static-config limitation. It also places the tool in a workflow with list_tier0_gateways and create_tier1_gateway, making the description complete for practical use.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains both parameters clearly: tier0_id is 'as returned by list_tier0_gateways' and target is 'NSX Manager target from config (default if omitted)'. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Get configuration details for one Tier-0 gateway' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_tier0_gateways and get_bgp_neighbors. It also clarifies it returns a single dict, not a list envelope, which is a distinct behavior.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use after list_tier0_gateways to inspect HA configuration, or to build the tier0_path', and 'For BGP peering state use get_bgp_neighbors instead'. This provides clear when-to-use and alternative tool selection.

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