get_configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint annotation ('[READ] GET /api/system/configuration') and the useful caveat that only 'some' configuration values are returned, but says nothing about which values, size, or sensitivity of the payload.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the operation and endpoint. The first line is essentially a restatement of the tool name and the endpoint line largely duplicates the annotation hint, so it is efficient but slightly redundant.

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 no-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is close to sufficient, but 'some of the configuration values' leaves ambiguity about scope and overlap with get_remnawave_settings/get_metadata. Without an output schema, a bit more detail on what is returned would help.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies. The schema itself is fully described with additionalProperties: false.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get Remnawave Configuration') and pins down the underlying endpoint GET /api/system/configuration. It does not distinguish itself from the very similar sibling get_remnawave_settings, which an agent could easily confuse with this 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the many sibling getters (get_remnawave_settings, get_metadata, get_stats, etc.), and no prerequisites or context are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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