system_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it returns real-time or aggregated data. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resource, listing specific statistics without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity is low (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough for a basic read operation. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like data format or potential errors, leaving some gaps for an AI agent to infer usage.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to document. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary details, meeting the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'overall Remnawave panel statistics', specifying the types of statistics (users, nodes, traffic, memory, CPU). It distinguishes from siblings like 'system_bandwidth_stats' or 'system_health' by focusing on comprehensive panel-level metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'system_nodes_statistics', which might overlap.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over other system-related tools like 'system_health' or 'system_nodes_statistics', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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