get_tier0_gateway

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds 'No side effects', specifies return fields, and describes error handling (returns error object instead of raising). Adds value beyond annotations.

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?

Well-structured with a clear [READ] tag, purpose, usage guidelines, return fields, and args. Every sentence adds value; no 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 output schema, description lists all return fields and error behavior. Also covers parameters, usage, and sibling distinctions. Completely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but description explains tier0_id as the ID from list_tier0_gateways and target as NSX Manager name from config.yaml with default behavior. Adds meaning that schema lacks.

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?

Clearly states it's a READ operation for a Tier-0 gateway (north-south edge router). Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning usage after list_tier0_gateways and directing BGP queries to get_bgp_neighbors.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (after list_tier0_gateways to inspect HA, or to build tier0_path for create_tier1_gateway) and when not to use (for BGP state, use get_bgp_neighbors). Provides clear context.

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