gateway_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'show whether' clearly signals a read-only status query with no mutation. It also discloses the specific behavioral output concept ('running and supervised'), which is meaningful beyond a generic status label.

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, tightly scoped sentence with no filler. The key information—what is shown and about which resource—is front-loaded and directly actionable.

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 zero-parameter status tool with an output schema present, the description provides adequate context: it names the resource and the exact state dimensions reported. No additional invocation nuance appears necessary for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 the schema is trivially complete and the description has no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add about inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('show') and a specific resource ('messaging gateway') with precise outcome semantics ('running and supervised'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gateway_restart and hermes_status based on wording alone.

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 the tool is for checking gateway state, but it does not state when to prefer it over similar siblings such as hermes_status or doctor, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative conditions. Usage context is inferred rather than explicit.

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