Get system stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds 'panel-wide' scope and the fact that the Xray core's current running state is reported (a liveness signal), but says nothing about data freshness, caching, or auth/admin requirements. Much of its content restates return fields that the output schema already carries.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then the enumerated data. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 read-only tool with a full output schema and readOnly annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to decide and call it. The only shortfall is the missing routing guidance relative to sibling monitoring/config tools.

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 to disambiguate and the baseline for a no-arg tool applies. No parameter guidance is needed or given.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'Reports panel-wide stats', then enumerates exactly what those stats are (CPU/memory, user counts by status, bandwidth totals/speeds, Xray core version, running state). The 'panel-wide' framing and the software/hardware content clearly separate it from siblings like marzban_users_list, marzban_nodes_list, and marzban_config_get.

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?

The content implies a health/monitoring use case, but the description never says when to pick this over marzban_nodes_list (per-node stats) or marzban_config_get, nor does it state any prerequisites such as admin authentication. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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