api_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful traits: the base URL is returned 'without secrets' and the panel check reports 'only the response code' (GET /api/system/health). It still omits auth requirements and whether the health probe has a timeout or can fail the call, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single dense sentence with the key facts front-loaded and no filler. It is on the long side for a status tool, but every clause adds distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates the returned fields, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret the response. Complexity is low, so little else is required; only the auth/prerequisite context is missing.

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 disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-level detail is needed or missing.

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 resource (server status) and enumerates exactly what it reports: mode ro/rw, base URL, published tool count, spec version, and panel availability. It is clear and self-contained, but it never names or contrasts with nearby siblings like auth_get_status, system_get_remnawave_health, or system_get_metadata, so an agent gets no explicit routing help.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite (e.g., auth requirement). Usage is only inferable from the listed return fields, which is weak given several overlapping status/health siblings exist.

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