get_tier1_gateway

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it is a READ operation and returns detailed info, but does not disclose further behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, data size). No contradiction with 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?

Extremely concise: one-line purpose header and two lines for parameters. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with '[READ]'. No redundancy or fluff.

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 2 parameters and strong annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it does, how to specify the resource, and optional configuration. No need for output schema details or further elaboration.

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%, so the description carries full burden. It explains that tier1_id is the gateway ID and target is an optional manager name from config with default behavior. This adds meaningful context beyond the parameter names alone.

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 it is a READ operation to get detailed info for a specific Tier-1 gateway. The '[READ]' prefix and 'Get detailed info for a specific Tier-1 gateway' precisely identify the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tier1_gateways and create/update/delete.

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 implicitly guides use for retrieving details of a single gateway. It contrasts with list_tier1_gateways (which would list all) and with create/update/delete. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or alternative tools.

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