system_get_remnawave_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or what a healthy vs unhealthy result implies. It only restates the HTTP verb and path, which is not behavior.

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 endpoint, but the raw path and auto-generated "Tags: System Controller" line are filler that do not earn their place for an agent choosing a tool.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of context for this health-check endpoint, and it omits what the response reports and under what conditions it should be used. It is under-specified for an agent needing to pick it over api_status or system_get_stats.

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 the schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool, with no misleading parameter claims.

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?

"Get Remnawave Health" essentially restates the tool name (system_get_remnawave_health), so the description is close to tautological. The raw endpoint path and the auto-generated "Tags: System Controller" line add no descriptive meaning, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like api_status, auth_get_status, or system_get_stats.

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 other status/health/stats siblings (api_status, system_get_stats, system_get_metadata). No prerequisites, no context for its use are given.

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