system_get_configuration

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait - that only 'some' configuration values are returned - but says nothing about authentication requirements, whether values are sensitive, or caching/rate behavior. For a config-read endpoint the risk is low, yet the disclosure is thin.

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?

The text is short and front-loads the resource, but it wastes lines on a raw REST path and a boilerplate 'Tags: System Controller' that add little for an agent. The useful content is a single vague sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place to learn what is returned - yet it only says 'some of the configuration values' without enumerating or characterizing them. For a no-param read endpoint that is otherwise simple, this leaves the agent unable to anticipate the response.

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 baseline rule a 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to clarify here. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty object schema is self-explanatory.

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 clear verb+resource ('Get Remnawave Configuration'), which is better than a bare name restatement. However, it never distinguishes this from siblings like remnawave_settings_get_settings or system_get_metadata, and the qualifier 'Returns some of the configuration values' is vague about what configuration is actually retrieved. An agent cannot tell which system/config read to pick without opening the schemas.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as remnawave_settings_get_settings. The only context is the raw REST path and a 'System Controller' tag, which implies usage but does not guide tool selection.

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