get_remnawave_health

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 only the HTTP verb/path (GET /api/system/health), which slightly corroborates the read-only nature but discloses nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or what 'health' actually reports.

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?

Two compact lines, front-loaded with the action and then the endpoint. The only waste is mild redundancy between the name and the first line.

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, no-output-schema health endpoint the definition is minimally sufficient, and annotations carry the safety profile. It still omits what the check evaluates (process liveness vs. downstream node health) and whether a non-200 result is surfaced as an error, which would meaningfully help an agent interpret the call.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, but there is nothing to add.

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 Health') and even names the underlying endpoint (GET /api/system/health), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from plausible siblings such as get_status or get_stats, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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 prefer this health check over get_status, get_stats, or get_metadata, nor any stated preconditions. 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.